Police Drone Collides With Cessna: The Transportation Safety Board of Canada's Buttonville Report

[@JoeBoxr]

The airport name is actually ButtonVILLE. Just so you know. The cop was lazy and horribly negligent. If the drone was a foot higher and hit the engine, it might have crashed. The cop should be charged with a crime.

[@Vegan_Cooking_Show]

I agree with you wholeheartedly but also: lol, lmao. Police accountability? On *this* planet?

[@vmx200]

If this was a civilian, they would have been arrested.

[@BrianBoniMakes]

Exactly!

[@DonJoyce]

regarding the airport name, yes I goofed. I used to live near a street called Buttonwood, and my old brain cells did a lot of autocorrecting. Sorry about that.

[@dee004100]

@@DonJoyce Was that Buttonwood at Jane and Weston Rd. Don?

[@KC-nd7nt]

Police should be charged with same crime as if a citizen did this . Law for all or law for none !

[@TonyRule]

Had that drone been 1m higher up, those two pilots would have had a 120km/h drone in the face. The responsibility for this incident clearly lays entirely with the drone operator.

[@cajunman6892]

Private pilot here. Spotting a small (relative to standard aircraft that I would be looking to see and avoid) in impossible on final approach. Controlling speed, decent angle, decent speed and lining up for runway wile compensating for headwind and crosswind,.... and I am to spot a 1 meter black skeleton? Report WAS a cover-up of primary (only?) failed responsibility of the law enforcement.

[@lucianonisi6987]

I have been a private pilot for 31 years, I have actually flow into Buttonville airport when I lived in Ontario. A couple of things regarding this video 1) Pilots don't use metres for distance or altitude, we use feet, we also use MPH or Knots not KPH. I can convert yes, but hearing a discussion about flying and using non-standard verbiage is actually confusing and not accurate. 2) The video was well presented and I thank you for you efforts posting this. 3) The drone pilot made a number of critical errors and I would hope that not only did the York Police receive a fine but the drone pilot was suspended from flying until he could be recertified. 4) An airplane on final for a runway at 400ft entire focus is on glide slope/speed and looking at the runway, this perception that they would be scanning for a drone even if they knew one was flying is ridiculous. Further an aircraft could never attempt to avoid hitting a drone even if it was hovering as the speed of the aircraft and judging the exact position of the drone even if it were seen would be literally impossible, so that should not have even been entered into that report as it's not reasonable to expect a pilot to be able to do that. 5) The fact that the drone pilot didn't even contact the airport manager or file a drone flight plan - no attempt to to notify. 6) If I was the owner of the aircraft I would be seeking for repair of the aircraft from the York Police, failure I would sue them. My final views: This is completely unacceptable behavior from an Advance Drone Pilot and Police Officer - being over saturated etc is no excuse - My background as a Paramedic for 19 years is always safety first - Always. that accident could have resulted in that aircraft crashing with potential for fatal injuries. Had that drone struck the windshield it would most surly have shattered it and entered the cockpit with devastating results. - Large birds have shattered windshields.

[@PRH123]

All correct... and airfields have patterns for approach and departure, and fixed wing and rotorcraft are supposed to use them... and on uncontrolled airfields announce your presence and intentions on UniCom... The statement by the TSB that the Cessna pilot should have seen a tiny drone hovering in his flight path, and by putting that at the top of the report, is a lame attempt to blame the pilot of the Cessna... Seems that the authorities can do no wrong even when they do... Just to add, the concept that someone standing on the ground and looking up can somehow keep aircraft separated ignores every aspect of aero-nav and control developed over the last 100 years... and is really just stupid....

[@geraldscott4302]

I have been a private pilot for nearly 40 years. I have only flown outside the U.S. three times, many years ago, and all three times was to a resort in Mexico with an uncontrolled runway. There is no country in the world that uses the metric system for aviation. Aviation is standardized around the world. Every pilot uses the same units of measure, the same acronyms, the same procedures, and virtually every airport in the world uses English. Just because I haven't flown in other countries does not mean I don't know how ATC works. It's the same all over the world. Just ask any airline pilot.

[@geraldscott4302]

@@PRH123 Exactly. All aircraft using an airport, controlled or uncontrolled, must use that airports traffic pattern. A pilot must know the traffic pattern in use at any airport they intend to use, and for controlled airports they must contact approach control and identify themselves. They then receive further instructions from ATC. You can't just fly willy nilly around an airport. Unfortunately we have had more than one accident, including fatalities, at our local municipal airport, caused by an FBO operating those damned Robinson R22 helicopters who seem to think they can do just that. I don't know why they are still in business. Every accident involving one of their helicopters has been the helicopter pilot's fault. Fixed wing pilots have been complaining for years to no avail. I'm talking about Chandler Municipal Airport (CHD)

[@DWBurns]

In Eastern Europe and China maybe South America, altitude is in meters, speed in kilometers per hour and get this, wind speed in meters per second. I am from the US, I understand metric and this is Canadian aimed at Canadians, just ask Air Canada, they changed over to the metic system but the Boeing 767 did not, they are metric in the 51st state. When we annex them we will change that. We are coming for the maple syrup, don’t hurt the maples. Back to our 172 kills drone in vengeful fit of rage over potential replacement by soulless electric buzzing things. When interviewed the 172 insisted that real aircraft use 100LL now that 115/130 is gone. The 172 said real AvGas is orange as it was helped into the MX hanger in shock over the attempted assassination by a police drone. Mechanics gave the 172 a quart of 100 weight oil to settle it rattled valves. Placing any blame on the flight crew is an example of possible incompetence of the investigator. Sounds like Canada has something like the other 50 southern states have a see and be seen rule. Expecting the crew to see the invisible is unreasonable, also considering the drone was below their line of sight even if they had Chuck Yeager vision they cannot see through the engine and cowling. I have only hit a few birds with no damage, I don’t know what would happen if a drone hit my windshield, mine are new 3/8 inch polycarbonate but the 50 year old stuff I replaced it likely would have entered my Arrow. I know if I had to hit something I think that would be the place on my plane, below the engine still with the strong frontal structure. It would damage fiberglass but not damage control surfaces or fuel tanks. Now the birds ingested in the company jet engines required at minimum detailed borescope inspection. I believe non biological ingestion requires complete disassembly and replacement of compressor and stator blades. That would be under $10 million per engine for our fleet but a big Boeing noise maker is a lot more. I don’t care if you are the police, you cannot fly a drone near an airport, especially right off the end of the runway. Blaming the pilots for hitting a drone they had no knowledge of in an area that is a drone free zone is totally unreasonable. You residents of the 51st state remember, we want only pure maple syrup. The bottle will have a big red maple leaf on it and say product of Canada, USA the 51st state. Once the annexation is complete you can go back to feet, pounds, miles and gallons. Your welcome.

[@1ltcap]

i'm probably gonna get flamed for this one.....but....if us civilians can't fly drones near an airport for safety reasons, then neither should the police be allowed to. if it's a safety issue, it doesn't matter who's flying it.

[@russellmcfarling7498]

Damn straight... they shouldn't have helicopters either.

[@rinzler9775]

The drone was illegally in the airspace, and the argument that the Cessna pilot somehow had xray vision and could see through the dash of his aircraft to a drone situated below is insane.

[@paulbeswetherick1071]

I did not expect such badge bias, but they effectively blamed the pilot by listing #1, that the aircraft pilot failed to see the drone. No wonder people lose faith in authority. This despite the police operator flying a drone in the landing approach to a certified airport without permission to be in restricted airspace, and without communicating on the airport frequency. There are at least a dozen regulatory failings by the police drone pilot, and yet somehow the manned aircraft pilot was expected to see this 6kg drone hovering for two minutes, at 120m above the ground! 1m higher and it would have been fatal. I recently took the RPAS basic exam, and it was not easy, Don's video's helped enormously, thank you.

[@garettanderson6772]

They lost faith after the tyrants turned on the population the last several years. Canada cops are filthy traitors.

[@robertthomas5906]

The first finding is ludicrous and disingenuous. I'm a US private pilot and I'm coming up on two decades of flying. It was an airport approach and the drone is black. He had almost no chance of seeing that drone and they know it. It's up to the drone operator to avoid aircraft, not for aircraft to avoid a fool's drone that is intentionally in the flight path of a busy airport. The drone operator should do years in jail for attempted murder. Just a little up and they would have gone right through the windshield killing them. A fine isn't enough. The police knew very well there was an airport there and they knew they needed to stay well away from the airspace. Someone must be making sure that doesn't happen, or don't use drones near any airport or airstrip. This is a clear case of covering for the negligent police. Had this been a civilian doing the same thing I bet they'd throw the book at them. Probably years of jail time. Going through the checklist isn't applicable and they know it. There is nothing on the checklist that says to check for a drone on the final approach. I've looked at a whole bunch of checklists - it's not on there. It's hard enough to spot another aircraft and do everything you need to do to land an airplane. I don't understand why they're trying to put as much blame as possible on the pilot when there is no blame for him at all. They need to get the police that did it. Make an example of them. Police need to know that they can't just do whatever they want and that's a problem in Canada. It's a problem in the US as well. Lots of examples. One of the most outrageous was handcuffing a woman, putting her in a police vehicle that was over railroad tracks, and then acting all surprised when a train hit the car. At least they did something to those cops as they had to for such gross negligence. The same thing here. Gross negligence. The woman survived being hit by a Diesel locomotive train with severe, probably life-long injuries. At my airport - 2W6 they teach how to fly drones. I've never had a problem. I stay in my airspace, they stay in theirs and I don't even know they're there.

[@spatstat435]

The Cessna is descending on final approach; the drone is hidden from view below the nose of the plane; the main part of the drone is about 10 cm across, so at 1 km distance (30 seconds before impact) it subtends an angle of about 60*0.1/1000= 0.006 degrees, or one third of a minute of arc, which is less than the human eye can detect. That is NOT a failure of see-and-avoid. The Cessna pilots didn't break any rules or even fail to follow good practice. The police on the other hand, hovered in the middle of the final approach path of an active runway, without any radio communication at this tower-controlled airport, which are both serious violations of the law. Incredible.

[@TS-qd2uj]

I totally agree with you. I smell a rat here. The TSB is downplaying the completely unacceptable behaviours of the drone operator, from start to finish. I'll bet the fine was a token one too.

[@chrisschack9716]

One note, there's no tower there since 2019. This just makes monitoring comms that much more important.

[@jdrissel]

They really struggled to keep the police out of the headline with that first finding, and it worked. Shame on the journalists who let that work.

[@nitehawk86]

Cops: "It's not illegal if we do it"

[@marclandreville6367]

Blaming the airplane pilots for not applying see-and-avoid is a bit rich. The see-and-avoid concept was meant to apply to other aircraft, not relatively tiny objects almost impossible to see at any distance necessary to begin an evasive manoeuvre. The reckless actions of the YRP unfortunately paints the whole law abiding drone community in a bad light in the public eye.

[@julienb5815]

8:58 in all fairness, if more victims thought about moving out of the way of bullets, there would be no more murders. Damn victims.

[@TheAlastairBrown]

It's hard to see your own drone when it's 100m up and you know where it is. The idea that the Cessna pilot had some sort of failure to scan is a total load of BS, especially when you take into account how fast it's flying. RIDICULOUS. There's no reason to even include this in the report, let alone put it at number 1. This reads like the TSB is providing cover for the police.

[@loupgarou-dj3tm]

That was right at the intersection of two busy streets where looking down in any direction is just a whole bunch of moving objects. He's on short final, about to cross a busy six lane highway and headed toward a large bunch of buildings that are taller than the approach height on the N-S runway, and he's supposed to be able to spot a toy-sized object under his nose? It stinks.

[@PghGameFix]

The problem is... they just didn't want to blame the police. If this was a NEWS crew... the report would be different.

[@gutsymovies]

I'm an RC pilot, full scale pilot, and Aerospace Structural Engineer. I understand the full scope of this incident from multiple angles. The reason aircraft engineers design aircraft to withstand birdstrikes is because it is impossible for an average pilot of a manned aircraft to identify and avoid a bird at a closure rate of hundreds of miles per hour. Expecting a pilot do to the same for a dark-colored drone is ridiculous. I find that the drone operator and assistant are 100% at fault here. Had the impact happened just a few feet higher the drone could have penetrated the windshield and killed one of the occupants of the Cessna. I hope the police department received a sizable fine and the drone pilot fired.

[@shelbyseelbach9568]

Doubtful.

[@TheSiriusEnigma]

The drone operator should have his licenses revoked. It’s not hard. Same as doing something stupid with your car. This is no different than driving in the reverse lane of an highway. I find it disgusting that someone is trying to use this for political reasons by blaming the manned aircraft. Note how they did not at any point in what is shown of the report, mentioned that the drone was illegally flying in a restricted airspace.

[@helix149]

This is 100% on the drone pilot and department to suggest otherwise is Ludacris. Furthermore, to suggest that all small airplanes should have ADSB to protect against drone strikes is absurd on its face. An adsb unit on its own not counting installation cost or maintenance costs would run a minimum of $1500-$2000 US. Why should general aviation pilots carry that burden so that the cops can ignore the rules?

[@wilfdarr]

100%

[@dev0random]

Blame the Cessna pilot. I'm surprised the police didn't arrest the Cessna pilot for being in their way.

[@coldlakealta4043]

oh, you know York Regionals, eh?

[@HillyDriver]

Don't laugh. JT will use this to ground aircraft except his.

[@dc0911]

I’m a chief flight instructor at an Ontario flight school and this is total bs. If I had been flying that Cessna and this is the report that came out saying I was the 1st cause because I didn’t have a proper scan; I would request through the FOIA from the TSB all email, texts and other communications to and from/between the TSB and the York police since this accident happened as I’m sure it would show the coverup. Then I would sue both for defamation and putting a mark on my flight accident history and endangering my life through their inability to follow the law and their inept standard operating procedures. I don’t think the drone pilot should be charged with any crimes unless it can be proven that he intentionally tried to injure someone, but his company and the police that hired him/company should definitely be held financially responsible for the accident and the danger he needlessly exposed the crew of the C172 to. There was no way for the C172 crew to see that drone. When you approach to land in a C172, your approach speed is about 70-80 MPH, or 130 km/h. You’re descending at 500 feet per minute and the nose of the plane is in a slight nose down attitude; your focus is on the runway environment and you’re judging your height above the field as to whether you’re too high or too low so you can adjust your pitch or power as needed to maintain the correct approach path. At that particular phase of the flight, you are not scanning for police drones because 1) they are not supposed to be there and 2) your focus is on landing! If the painted the drone yellow and red, you would still not be able to see it. If they put beacon lights on it, you might see it but no guarantees. Even if it had ADSB out; only airplanes with ADSB in would see it and most general aviation aircraft are not equipped with such equipment!

[@rex8255]

But your NOT a cop, so OF COURSE it's your fault! Having watched the American police for decades now, I recognize it.... "We investigated ourselves, and found we did nothing wrong". If the Cessna was flown by the cops, and your were flying the drone, you'd likely be in jail. EDIT: OK, at least the York police got a spanking. I still question the fact that the fuzzy language about the fixed wing pilot was at the top.

[@dh2032]

your were flying the drone, you'd be in jail

[@CrimFerret]

Obviously the drone pilot was 100% at fault here and should be liable, but even in Canada, cops can do no wrong, or when they do, they don't get held accountable

[@mikeallan9574]

No situation is so dire that it can’t be made worse by the presence of a cop.

[@lukeandmich]

This is all I have to say :( 901.17 A pilot of a remotely piloted aircraft shall give way to power-driven heavier-than-air aircraft, airships, gliders and balloons at all times. 901.18 No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft in such proximity to another aircraft as to create a risk of collision.

[@vonSchwartzwolfe]

Problem. Police give way to no one. They expected everyone to stay out of their way. Their the police.🤔

[@lucianonisi6987]

Yup....says it all.......

[@cgjoe64]

The fact that the Cessna crew are mentioned at all in the report seems incongruous. Fully the responsibility of the police.

[@fmh357]

I'm a certified Pilot but not a drone pilot, yet it is clear to me the drone operator must assume major if not total responsibility for the accident and that the Police department though guilty is trying to shift blame onto the Cessna pilots who were following accepted practices. So the next time Police are tracking say a bank felon and a five year child come around the corner playing with a squeaky toy and the Officer shoots them dead it's somehow the child's fault? Is this how Canada runs their Law Enforcement. Enough said.

[@MrTubified]

To be clear here, the York Regional Police were issued a fine and the taxpayers paid it.

[@mdsx01]

As a 172 pilot, theres no way I would have seen that thing, even if I knew it was there. It would have been obscured by the nose of the aircraft anyways.

[@b101uk]

you don't need any training whatsoever to know that the drone operator was grossly incompetent and not fit to hold the position they did through the display of absolute disregard of blatantly obvious risk. the police involved should have had the book thrown at them.

[@gojeda]

Why do I get the feeling that if the drone was owned privately by an individual and the plane was from the police aviation unit, that there would have been an arrest, complete with a perp walk of someone being made an example of. What a joke. Looks like the double standards aren't limited to just the United States.

[@MattyEngland]

It's the same thing here in England and all across the western world... One law for police, politicians and bankers, another law for the rest of us.

[@JPTulo]

Who’s going to pay for the repairs on that Cessna? Any answer other than the drone operators paycheck/pension or insurance is wrong.

[@juliogonzo2718]

I'm sure YRPS is insured

[@jonathantaylor6926]

If a citizen did this you would be in so much trouble, and rightfully so- could have easily been fatal. But since a copper was flying the drone I’ll take a wild guess and figure nothing happens.

[@georgehaeh4856]

Why should small aircraft operators be required to shell out $5,000 to $10,000 so drones can buzz around airports?

[@driewiel]

Why should me $15 drone have $300 Remote ID?

[@jm3779]

ADSB should be mandatory to all aircraft by now. When it’s possible to bring that in to a small drone for a few hundred bucks then it should not be possible to do it to a appropriate price tag also to add that to a manned pleasure aircraft. But in this case the blame goes to bad police behavior, and the fact that this seems to be covered up by law enforcement.

[@mission1125]

Let me guess, the police investigated themselves and found no wrong doing...

[@dperreno]

Don't blame the airplane pilot, this is completely on the drone pilot and drone rules. Sure, having ADSB transmitters on all aircraft would be nice, but that is a big ask and shouldn't be required. If a drone is being operated within an airport's restricted zone, then it is on the drone operator and the ATC to monitor the drone's position and keep it out of the path of the manned aircraft. Period.

[@stephengreen3566]

I bet the owner of the plane had to contact his insurance to pay for the damage to his plane and the officer who, in my opinion, was at fault will not have to pay for the drone, the fine, or the repairs to the airplane. Once again, the taxpayer will have to pay for the uncaring incompetent officer's blunder. The results would probably be the same even if the plane was downed and the pilot and passenger died. Being a police officer is the only job you can have where you don't have to follow the rules and you are not held accountable. This is why no one respects the police anymore.

[@mike_oe]

This is disturbing. As a PPL pilot and a certified drone pilot I'm speechless over that report. It's wrong on so many levels, that I don't even know where to begin. But let me make a single comment: When any aircraft is establised on final, it will have a significant nose up attitude. The pilot has very little chance to spot a drone close to and level with his own plane. And it's often hard to spot another full sized aircraft in the pattern even if you know it's there, so spotting a small black drone requires a fair amount of luck. Terrible statement of the TSB!

[@EwanMarshall]

I agree, but it still would be good for police drones specifically to be painted up with reflective and fluorescent stripes like a cop car.

[@hotrodray6802]

Yes. Seeing that small of a stationary object against the ground clutter background is virtually impossible CP here

[@petervanderwaart1138]

I can't think of any excuse for a system that allows a drone to hover in the approach to an active runway.

[@dazoedave]

They enforce rules on us flying drones and it's the cops crashing the drones into planes.

[@MagMan4x4]

The police are above the law in Canada too eh? We have that problem here in the US.

[@corsairsofnarshaddaa]

The Cessna pilots are lucky this was in Canada. U.S. police would've charged them with assault on a police officer and negligent homicide. Thin blue line and all that.

[@JPTulo]

Seems like that’s where they were trying to go with the first note being that the Cessna failed to see and avoid. 🤦‍♂️ Mind boggling.

[@BardedWyrm]

I would be interested to hear what the likely consequences would have been for a civilian drone operator perpetrating the same grossly negligent acts.

[@juliogonzo2718]

Sore bunghole

[@briananderson8733]

But what part of operating a drone near an airport is actually legal. LET ALONE SAFE. THat is the BASIC FUNDAMENTAL FAILURE. THe cops were doing something stupid.

[@clintmowbray1836]

As a retired RCAF Helicopter pilot, private fixed wing pilot and drone pilot I agree with pretty much everything you've said Don. I can't help but feel if it was a private drone operator in this situation the report would have been far more critical of the drone pilot involved. Luckily no one was hurt, a foot higher and the prop could have been taken out and it might have been a different story. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[@tedmoss]

Actually it hit the prop, just not in a way to break it.

[@JelMain]

@@tedmoss He's pointing towards the consequences of it hitting the cockpit windows, I think.

[@fromtheflightdeck252]

Cops get a free ride in this case, yes indeed. Blame the Cessna. Who ordered the cover up?

[@JelMain]

@@fromtheflightdeck252 It's Canada. Goes without saying. I'm only surprised they didn't have a horse strapped underneath.

[@xoso599]

I'm sure if a citizen drone operator crashed a drone into a police aircraft they would be in jail and would never be allowed to fly again. Nice to see the government covering up for other parts of the government.

[@DrTofutybeast]

Exactly

[@BillySugger1965]

Sorry, this report appears inadequate in several key respects. It smacks of one establishment agency covering for another. The C172 pilot was operating according to regulations with appropriate clearance in class E airspace. The RPA operator was not! This key distinction was entirely absent from the findings.

[@bigdatapimp]

Can't wait to hear @xjet speak on this one.

[@rberkar6669]

Figures the government would find that it was someone else's fault and not really their own even though they violated many laws. The murder victims being at fault because they didn't move out of bullets way seems very appropriate in this case.

[@National757]

Drone pilot is 100% at fault! Should never have been operating in the final approach corridor. While attention is focused on landing, even at approach speed it would more than likely have been impossible to see and avoid the drone before the collision. I'm a 37 year aviator. Fly for a major airline. Have had many bird strikes in my career, including geese, and impacts on the windshield. Obviously travelling a little faster in an airliner than a Cessna on approach, but still the same result. By the time you see the hazard it is already too late! This could have ended very badly for the people on the Cessna, not to mention other innocent bystanders on the ground that could have been injured. Thank God no one was injured.

[@chrisalexander2478]

Sadly, law enforcement and emergency services don't take the rules seriously. Ive seen it first hand.

[@donc9751]

When the cops/gov screws up its all good nobody goes to jail, when it's a civilian, there's hell to pay not to mention fines and jail. What kind of dummy hovers a drone on approach to an airport!?

[@1988dgs]

Closing at 120kph on something the size of a balloon… no surprise it was not seen. World opinion is the drone pilot was at fault, what would they do to a civilian who flew a drone there, caused a collision with a plane with people on board and debris to fall on a residential area?

[@thorerik]

Also probably below the nose of the plane…

[@michaeldeleted]

Oh the hypocrisy, of government agencies! I could have LEGALLY flown my DJI Mini 3 in exactly the same circumstances, but in the event of a collision I would have been given at least a $5000 fine and I'll bet the police would have also found criminal charges for me too. "You know the score, pal. You're not cop, you're little people!" -Bryant, Bladerunner.

[@andrelapointe1983]

YRP are some of the most corrupt anywhere. TSB is populated by Public Service Union types and will defend their unionized counterparts every time!

[@JoeBlow-zr2ru]

It's hard enough to make out a GA plane, when looking down from above with a backdrop of streets, buildings, cars etc. Not at all like looking up at an object against a clear blue sky. To expect the Cessna crew to spot a small, stationary object like this against the ground clutter is simply ridiculous. Especially below the nose. And even if they did see it, by the time they realised what they were looking at it'd probably be too late to evade.

[@TheGreg6466]

typical cop, "Them pesky safety rules aren't for me but if anyone else (who's not a cop) breaks the rules then I'll arrest them."

[@jonathanrees3765]

How would anybody in the Cessna been able to see the drone? from the impact the drone was pretty much in the plane's blind spot - when there was line of site it would have been to small and effectively invisible. At closer range it would have been masked by the planes engine cowl. So not sure how the report can be classified as professional or even reasonable. Simple accurate report was, the drone pilot completely stuffed up.

[@Chris_da_fro]

Agreed, it seems to don a light on the Cessna pilots like they are at fault for something they literally could not have done anything about.

[@chrisschack9716]

I just went through the report looking for "light" and came up with a lot of matches, mostly on "flight" but none having anything to do with the presence or absence of anti-collision lights. Certain other parts imply that even if they were there, they were not in use. This means you have a small, dark, stationary object in the air to spot from above ... good luck with that!

[@TheAlastairBrown]

@@chrisschack9716 The collision lights are always on - they're just LEDs. They're quite bright, and easy to see at night, but during the day they can't compete with sunlight, nothing can. You can't see commercial airliners from their lights in the day time either.

[@FAST928GTS]

If the drone pilot was not a police officer I am sure the out come would be a hole lot different and some one would be in deep you know what.

[@MoejoTheGreat]

There is no way you're spotting a 6 kilo drone while going 125mph.

[@wilfdarr]

You can in a lot of situations (I've had to see and avoid chicken hawks and mallards on multiple occasions: they're smaller than that drone), but a black drone hovering against the background of a black runway, no.

[@alexbolin3159]

So it's not okay for normal people to do what they do, just because they're police, just as always, they're allowed to screw stuff up and then blame it on normal people. Love it!

[@bthemedia]

Of course, 100% gas lighting but the police (tax payer dollars) were fined 🙄

[@CHMichael]

Regular cops flying drones - they fly the same way they drive. The cops blaming the civilians is also typical. Tax payers are going to buy a new one.

[@iknklst]

Cops ARE civilians, no matter what they think. The same laws should apply to them , but since they do the bidding of corrupt governments they get special status allowing them to break any law they want to.

[@Swaggerlot]

Reading the actual report is actually worse than reading the press summary. It is preposterous to even suggest that the drone would be picked up in a visual scan; even though they do not blame the Cessna pilots as such, only a non-pilot would suggest such nonsense. The Police operation was defective, non-compliant and unsafe. Had anyone else done such things they would have had their arses reamed and been charged.

[@jamesmills9240]

From the location of the damage on the Cessna, if the drone had been 1 meter higher the student would have been killed. Since the student pilot was flying toward the drone and it was stationary there were probably things in the back ground that the drone blended in with. A photo from the students perspective would be interesting to see.

[@RCman16_MAAC]

That report summary obviously had been filtered by way of the Officers union reps. Thus the strange reverse emphasis down playing their very careless mistakes.

[@chiefmacarthur]

Don, that was a great report of the event and your subsequent findings/conclusions were, in my opinion, spot on! I think the TSB was doing their level best to take some of the sting of the accident away from the Police department. Unfortunately in doing so, they appeared to place some blame on the Cessna pilot and I say shame on them for doing so as the Cessna pilot was blameless! The TSB has an obligation to report legitimate, bias-free findings and should also make sound recommendations for avoiding repeat accidents in similar circumstances in the future. I hope the author of the TSB report reviews this video and learns from it.

[@blimpcommander1337]

Did the drone pilot have his licensed suspended or revoked for almost killing 2 people?

[@kevinmorris4517]

As a pilot, it is very hard to see full size aircraft when ATC makes you aware of their presence let alone a black 6 Kg drone. To put #1 as the C-172 crew failure to see the drone is a Government cover up of their own employee's misconduct and unsafe behavior. What a crock!

[@meme-wo6ok]

Police at fault but blame the private pilot figures

[@larryjanson4011]

if this been a civilian flying the drone. he would have gone to prison. as well as gotten a $50,000.USD fine. No reason for the police to be allowed to be “special” not be allowed to do there thing outside of the rules imposed on everybody else.

[@ElementofKindness]

Absolutely unsurprising that the federal agency blames the individual, instead of the government.

[@rcnovice1066]

There seem to be two issues here. One is the shocking disregard/ignorance that the York police pilot had for basic rules of flying a drone in a NFZ. The second is, as most posts on the comments note, if this had been a regular citizen involved we would be looking at huge fines and possibly criminal charges for endangering safety/life of the Cessna pilot and crew. As they say, one law for the police and another for the rest of us. It’s really quite dismaying, especially as the TC report writers appear to be doing back flips to excuse the police actions. No wonder people are cynical and don’t trust government any more. A little honesty and truth telling is all that is needed to change this negative outlook. Sadly lacking here by the sounds of it.

[@akosyoutub]

Well, of course, try to spot a drone about 1m in size in front of the ground as a background, from hundreds of meters, probably in the part of the airspace covered by the nose of the plane, while you are descending and taking care of the tasks of landing and paying attention to the runway...

[@robfj3414]

As a former licenced pilot (usually flying 172s as a matter of fact) and an advanced drone pilot, I would say without hesitation that all culpability should fall directly on the police pilot and the police agency in question. I am also bothered by the report mentioning that ‘police policy did not require a trained observer.’ Police regulations do not supersede Transport Canada regulations. I spent my career in emergency services, frequently working directly with local police agencies in and around Toronto both in the field and in training and can vouch for this being in their rules and regulations. In the case of any regulation that is not explicitly detailed, existing regulations regarding public safety in particular are held to be standard operating practice. I’m familiar with Buttonville Airport, and I can’t imagine how he would not have known that he was flying across the flight path of every incoming aircraft. And they would have been landing with enough regularity that it would’ve been impossible not to be aware of their presence. The idea that he couldn’t hear a Cessna 172 that was only 150m overhead and within less than a kilometre makes him, to put it bluntly, stupid enough to make me wonder how he managed to get certification in the first place. There is no excuse for this complete failure on the part of the police to show any indication of the kind of vigilance and behaviour necessary to fly any aircraft, piloted or remote.

[@tedmoss]

You are correct, that's why people die.

[@johnpublic6582]

I'm shocked that the police didn't charge the pilot with felony destruction of police property, felony obstruction of police activities, felony driving away from the scene of an accident, felony backsassing the offended officer, felony wreckless operation of a vehicle.

[@coldlakealta4043]

felony being a regular citizen encroaching on the Land of the Unaccountable

[@Finder245]

While I agree that ADS-B should be standard in GA aircraft today (and equipment should not be so expensive...), you also have to recognize that most people have no way to check if their ADS-B transmitter is *actually* operating. Operating drones near an airport and without line of sight is just dangerous.

[@mike_oe]

Yes, ADSB is prohibitively expensive for simple GA. However, if installed, the plane would show up on flightradar24, so it could be checked easily.

[@Finder245]

​@@mike_oe the ADS-B transmitter could fail during the flight and you would not know. You also cannot check flightradar24 during the preflight inspection because ADS-B does not reach far on the ground. It would be ideal if we all had ADS-B IN and OUT on our planes.

[@JohnSmith-vs2ri]

There is no chance of a pilot spotting a drone. If its below your nose its invisable. Pilots even miss other planes. This is a case of poorly written report. Drone pilot broke the rules. In the circuit pilots are too busy to use ADSB data unless they have TCAS that actually gives you verbal warning.

[@ulbuilder]

I've had other pilots cut me off when I was on final, I assume they just did not see me. An R/C club operates off the west side of the airport, I've never had one of them cross my flight path. If people doing this as a hobby can do it right professionals doing it for a living have no excuse for such poor airmanship.

[@flaminggorilla909]

Imagine scolding someone for not seeing a 6lb drone while moving 120 mph. Jesus I know pilots need good vision but that's just rediculous and everybody knows it.

[@AsgardStudios]

Thanks so much for sharing that, Don. I’m really surprised that the report didn’t emphasize all the rules that the Drone Pilot broke.

[@yclept9]

Visual scan - the best scanning technique is stare at a fixed ground point and look for motion in side vision. Unfortunately the thing you're going to collide with is not changing its bearing ("constant bearing means collision") so is the hardest thing to see in the first place. Add that it's tiny and it's hopeless.

[@rayfunk5659]

I'm well aware of what active scanning would encompass and the risk identified as a stationary drone in the final approach flight path at a speed of 120 kph and descending would be incredibly difficult to detect. You may as well say the Cessna pilot had failed to buy the winning lottery ticket number! Perhaps it is correct to mention that active scanning had failed to detect the drone, but the context sure seems unusual.

[@billyrayband]

If they can't do better than this, they should not be allowed in controlled airspace.

[@joejugashvili3616]

I don't recall anyone pointing this out, but, if the drone was hovering, it was motionless against a camouflage friendly background. Almost zero chance of the Cessna pilot spotting it. I had an incident once when flying right base in a C172 in a naval ctr zone. Just about to turn final when the controller says "You are second in line behind the A4 (Skyhawk)". What? Coming straight at me, on left base, grey against a grey horizon and motionless against the background, is the A4. No time for radio requests, just did a steep left turn, then asked permission. Assume you are surrounded by idiots!

[@rinzler9775]

Police helecopters are not exempt from airspace rules and have professional trained crews. Police drones must follow the same standards.

[@dannyCOTW]

Why was the pilot unaware of the drone activity when they are at a class E airport? Not only should there be a NOTAM published, but typically that means mandatory radio calls and traffic point outs from flight service specialists. Absolutely insane that the RPAS pilot made 0 radio calls when they are hovering in the pattern ON FINAL. I'm interested in the "see and avoid" item in the report. Maybe TC will do a study on how practical it is to see a drone through the aluminum cowling of a 172...

[@mr.rockel4324]

A fine is not enough. They should be charged criminally. Their actions were out of pure negligence.

[@wilfdarr]

Certainly charged, then let a judge decide. That's what they'd do if it was me operating there!

[@simona6229]

You're talking about the Cessna pilots presumably? The police aren't criminals, they're the good guys remember.

[@wilfdarr]

@@simona6229 You should watch the video before you comment: the police in this case were criminally negligent!

[@simona6229]

@@wilfdarr I did. They (the police as a collective organisation) were fined at tax payers expense. No evidence given that the perpetrators had any negative action taken against them.

[@simona6229]

@@wilfdarr Sense of humour failure here. Try googling 'irony'.

[@EdMatthewsPhoto]

Why didn't the police pilot lose his license? If a civilian was flying the drone and the police piloting the Cessna, I'm sure the reports conclusions would have been very different.

[@steinskotmyr2194]

You did a very good report of the report here. This drone pilot copper must be brainless and braindead when flying a 6 kg drone around an active airport without informing or getting a permission from any airport controller or authorities. On the ladder of neglecting safety and drone pilot rules this incident is the absolute top.

[@roybean9146]

Stay in school kids or YOU will end up a cop

[@AbNomal621]

It sounds like Canada has a similar Robles as the US where police are protected when they should instead be punished. The drone pilot was in the wrong and should receive reprimand. It would seem to me that the drone pilot should be focused on the drone and another operating and monitoring the camera. Meanwhile the police should be liable for the aircraft damage.

[@davidmacphee3549]

Cops are as bad here in Toronto as anywhere else. IQ not required.

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

I disagree 100% with the pilot or instructor being blamed for not scanning outside the cockpit. Looking at the impact point, the drone was the BOTTOM cowling. This BELOW, either the instructor or pilots, fields view out the windscreen or side windows.

[@theiaminu5375]

Laws don't apply to the police ....

[@jimmyjames1474]

This, they're dumb cowboys that unfortunately have qualified immunity.

[@jaytowne8016]

That police department should not be allowed to operate drones again. They have proved their inability to operate drones safely.

[@davygravy7332]

Not being spotted is exactly why the Ukrainians are using small drones to drop grenades on enemy solders from an altitude of 300 to 400 meters, and the background of the drone is blue sky, not ground clutter.

[@illuminaughty2929]

The police carelessly flying their fancy drones again. Rules for thee but not for me.

[@crissd8283]

If I was flying this drone, I'd be in jail. An object that isn't moving in the air (hovering) would be extremely hard to see and the drone is much to small to see well in advance. The drone shouldn't be flown that close to the airport and should never be flown that high. Lower for drones is better.

[@busabrye]

Police officers are to blame and should pay for all damages and receive additional training and maybe brain transplant

[@coldlakealta4043]

police officers pay for f'all. it is me, the stressed tax payer, who picks up all the bills

[@ebaystars]

I'd sue the Police for endangering my safety, recklessly without due regard, especially after reading the first para of that disgusting deliberatly angled report.

[@TexasVeteranPatriot]

Rules for me, but not for thee....

[@peterk2455]

I'm surprised the Cessna operator wasn't dragged from the aircraft, slammed to the ground, cuffed and charged with a terrorist act against a Canadian Police Aircraft. After all the drone pilot has a badge. All drone pilots are superbly trained professionals, that spend months learning to pilot their aircraft, drilled in radio procedures, learn aeronautical, meteorological and navigational knowledge. These people swanning about in small planes should just buy a ticket and get on an airliner if they actually want to be in the aircraft.

[@SHADOW.GGG-]

sarcasm i hope

[@tx2sturgis]

Lucky it happened in Canada. Here in the USA the cops would have tased and then arrested the Cessna pilots for damage to police property.

[@DonJoyce]

Ha ha

[@tonyvelasquez6776]

@@garettanderson6772 i kinda think we should roast and eat him//?

[@Kelownadroneworld]

lol thats funny

[@zira_fluff4105]

Your video has strikingly revealed the differences in consequences between RPAS police vs RPAS nonpolice operators.

[@1stsquadrone810]

AND RPAS pilots will be the only ones punished with excessive regulations