What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
UAS registration # is FA3CHWLFMH (info does not fit in block 13).
Description of the deviation:
On oct. 12, 2023, at approximately 07:30 LCL, a remote pilot was operating a UAS (iflight nazgul evoque V2) in Tucson mountain park over gate pass rd. the remote pilot has his own company and contracting for privacy data omitted to eventually film, “in flight”, mitsubishi heavy equipment. The remote pilot was doing a “demo run” to test the equipment (UAS was acquired the week prior) and would fly around a moving truck driving on gate pass rd (the privacy data omitteddriver of the truck was willing to participate in this “demo run”).
The remote pilot was on a hillside where he could see the whole length of the road. He had a visual observer next to him. While flying the UAS around the truck, the remote pilot and observer failed to see a small branch sticking out of a bush (bush located a hundred yards away or so). The UAS hit the branch and was thrown onto the hood of the truck, leading to scratches and dents. The UAS did not sustain any damage. No injuries were reported.
The pilot reported the event in accordance with §107.9 through the faa’s dronezone webpage.
Causal/contributing factors:
The remote pilot had scouted and surveyed the location prior to starting operations. Being that UAS operations can take place in random locations where the environment is fluid, and at times, uncontrollable (compared to an airport, as an example), the remote pilot (and visual observer) had not seen the small branch out of this bush. This UAS is classified as “small” and therefore vulnerable to other small objects if it comes in contact.
The remote pilot delayed his report to the FAA as he was uncertain if the damage to the vehicle met the $500 cost of repair threshold. Once he received a quote from a repair shop, which was greater than $500, he reported the event.
Recommendations for systemic corrective action to reduce risk of future occurrence:
• The investigating ASI performed the compliance action of counseling and discussed the applicable regulations (to include 14 CFR §107.23 and §107.145), root cause analysis, and mitigating strategies to prevent reoccurrence.
• The remote pilot performed his own rca and briefed the ASI.
As the FAA filed it
UAS REGISTRATION # IS FA3CHWLFMH (INFO DOES NOT FIT IN BLOCK 13).
DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVIATION:
ON OCT. 12, 2023, AT APPROXIMATELY 07:30 LCL, A REMOTE PILOT WAS OPERATING A UAS (IFLIGHT NAZGUL EVOQUE V2) IN TUCSON MOUNTAIN PARK OVER GATE PASS RD. THE REMOTE PILOT HAS HIS OWN COMPANY AND CONTRACTING FOR ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ TO EVENTUALLY FILM, “IN FLIGHT”, MITSUBISHI HEAVY EQUIPMENT. THE REMOTE PILOT WAS DOING A “DEMO RUN” TO TEST THE EQUIPMENT (UAS WAS ACQUIRED THE WEEK PRIOR) AND WOULD FLY AROUND A MOVING TRUCK DRIVING ON GATE PASS RD (THE ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^DRIVER OF THE TRUCK WAS WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS “DEMO RUN”).
THE REMOTE PILOT WAS ON A HILLSIDE WHERE HE COULD SEE THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THE ROAD. HE HAD A VISUAL OBSERVER NEXT TO HIM. WHILE FLYING THE UAS AROUND THE TRUCK, THE REMOTE PILOT AND OBSERVER FAILED TO SEE A SMALL BRANCH STICKING OUT OF A BUSH (BUSH LOCATED A HUNDRED YARDS AWAY OR SO). THE UAS HIT THE BRANCH AND WAS THROWN ONTO THE HOOD OF THE TRUCK, LEADING TO SCRATCHES AND DENTS. THE UAS DID NOT SUSTAIN ANY DAMAGE. NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED.
THE PILOT REPORTED THE EVENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH §107.9 THROUGH THE FAA’S DRONEZONE WEBPAGE.
CAUSAL/CONTRIBUTING FACTORS:
THE REMOTE PILOT HAD SCOUTED AND SURVEYED THE LOCATION PRIOR TO STARTING OPERATIONS. BEING THAT UAS OPERATIONS CAN TAKE PLACE IN RANDOM LOCATIONS WHERE THE ENVIRONMENT IS FLUID, AND AT TIMES, UNCONTROLLABLE (COMPARED TO AN AIRPORT, AS AN EXAMPLE), THE REMOTE PILOT (AND VISUAL OBSERVER) HAD NOT SEEN THE SMALL BRANCH OUT OF THIS BUSH. THIS UAS IS CLASSIFIED AS “SMALL” AND THEREFORE VULNERABLE TO OTHER SMALL OBJECTS IF IT COMES IN CONTACT.
THE REMOTE PILOT DELAYED HIS REPORT TO THE FAA AS HE WAS UNCERTAIN IF THE DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE MET THE $500 COST OF REPAIR THRESHOLD. ONCE HE RECEIVED A QUOTE FROM A REPAIR SHOP, WHICH WAS GREATER THAN $500, HE REPORTED THE EVENT.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SYSTEMIC CORRECTIVE ACTION TO REDUCE RISK OF FUTURE OCCURRENCE:
• THE INVESTIGATING ASI PERFORMED THE COMPLIANCE ACTION OF COUNSELING AND DISCUSSED THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS (TO INCLUDE 14 CFR §107.23 AND §107.145), ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS, AND MITIGATING STRATEGIES TO PREVENT REOCCURRENCE.
• THE REMOTE PILOT PERFORMED HIS OWN RCA AND BRIEFED THE ASI.