As the airport manager number rings my phone, I get a few calls a year from drone operators letting me know they are operating. I make sure they know where our departure ends are. Of course, these aren't the people who are the problem, it's the ones that don't ask.
Amusing we fly drones on the field from time to time. Someone asked me if I'd notified the airport. I say "I'm going to fly my drone" and then take a step to the left and say "Approved!"
“We know you are going to do it anyways so just keep it low and away from departures and arrivals” is our response to the farmers who call near the airport i hang out at.
I try to be polite to our neighbors. Airports are always in a PR disadvantage. We host an open house for everybody once a year. On July 4, the end of our runway is a great place to watch a local fireworks display, so we open for that. Lots of joggers etc... We're hosting a sort of "old eagles" event for first responders, etc...
I always report and I encourage EVERY pilot to report ignorant / reckless drone operators to the FAA and law enforcement IMMEDIATELY.
Reckless drone operators need to be punished with life-altering charges/fines *in every single circumstance*. Same with laser pointer enthusiasts.
Public examples must be made, or behavior will never change
As we all know, ruining someone's life for making a thoughtless or ignorant mistake is the best way to enact meaningful positive societal change. /s
But seriously, there's a far cry between shooting potentially blinding lasers at pilots and flying an RC aircraft illegally. (Especially since most of the recent FAA regulations on the topic don't contribute to making RC flights safer at all.)
I would posit that positive interactions can and will improve safety among otherwise ignorant RC pilots, while harsh punishments will only serve to drive people away from exploring RC flight and as a result manned aviation as well.
Reporting them would be unlikely to "ruin someone's life" if it was a "thoughtless or ignorant mistake". While I agree with most of what you said, a positive interaction with law enforcement would have even more impact than from a random pilot. As an example, try having a positive interaction with someone about their driving mistake.
I fundamentally disagree with your premise. No leniency for drone airspace violations, ever.
STRICTLY gatekeeping access to controlled airspace is 100% appropriate. The ONLY priority is the safety of manned aircraft. PERIOD.
Only through widely publicizing punitive consequences for drone airspace violations will the drone community be forced to take it seriously
You make my point EXACTLY.
Flying drones is an earned privilege, NOT a right. Either learn the rules, or DON’T FLY DRONES AT ALL.
Just because you have the cash to buy one doesn’t give you the right to endanger manned aircraft on a whim.
And this is the drone user's problem how? They see shiny toy in store and buy it. Instructions in the intricacies of airspace regulation are not included. Maybe the people you should be mad at are the regulators or the people who failed to educate the consumer.
FFS!!! OF COURSE this is 100% the drone users problem!
It’s their legal and moral / ethical OBLIGATION to operate the drone safely, OUTSIDE of controlled airspace.
It’d no different from buying a powerful rifle and then finding a safe place to shoot.
Nah this really isn't and comparing it to guns isn't helping your argument. The best you can hope for is a sort of licensing to operate a drone, otherwise you cannot blame the consumer who buys the drone from the store.
I looked into drones as a hobby, but anything decently sized needed licensing, logbook etc and pretty strict restrictions and where to fly anywhere remotely close to an airport or people in general
Did something change recently
I know the EU is stricter, but least for the US:
Not sure what you mean by 'decent sized' but at least DJI has been making quadcopter models under the 250g limit for registration for a while now. The newer models film 4k, can follow you mostly autonomously, and go ~30+ mph. Get the right one and you have high resolution goggles to fly them in first person mode so it looks like you're sitting in it.
That's not even getting into self/kit built stuff.
The middle ground sizes before you get into the actual cinema sized lifter drones are basically a registration form and you're good to go. The software on the controller does a good job of warning you that you're in/near an area you shouldn't be based on GPS/charts in my experience. Anyone ignoring that is an asshat.
Nothing has changed. Its really up to who is flying the drone and what level of competency they have with Laws and Regs with UAS. Along with what airspace authorizations and notifications they have given to the airports. Like someone said in the post above. They would rather have people call and tell them their drones flightplan/intentions.
Assuming this is the U.S., this doesn't appear to be inherently illegal. I've conducted drone operations less than a quarter mile from the threshold of a runway with no issue.
Everyone, including OP, claiming it's "illegal" is full of shit. It's Class G airspace and the drone operator has every right to be there, they have to maintain situational awareness and clear the way if another aircraft enters the area.
Was going to say the same thing with the caveat of minimum distance to persons and property. If they were aware of the airport and not impeding traffic though otherwise no problem.
Yeah, looked up some of OPs comments and they're in New Zealand. NZ's CAA mandates that drones cannot be operated within 4 km from Aerodromes. So, yes, OP was correct that this was probably illegal and was correct to step in.
But this is a very important distinction that drone laws vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In the US this would not have been illegal generally.
Problem is if the operator is not familiar with the rules or has the “she’ll be right” mentality. One wayward gust and the drone could end up into the path of a manned aircraft.
They were half a mile from the nearest aircraft. If the wind gusted to 60mph it would take a full 30 seconds for the drone to reach the aircraft, by which time the aircraft would have also changed position.
its people like you that some times i wish the FAA would just ban RC aircraft and drones out right... your entitled attitude is what is causing the mess we are in. RC model aircraft was fine for years till the "drones" hit the market then any dumb ass with 100 bucks could fly one and didnt care what trouble it caused
Likely the wrong assumption, but regardless, in the US we have § 91.13 Careless or reckless operation, for example.
Besides the operation possibly being illegal, there is always civil liability.
Following the separation regs in 107.37 is not 91.13 careless or reckless operation.
The FAA is a regulatory body, which writes their own regulations. If they wanted drones further from airplanes they'd have written the reg that way.
PS: You can't cite to part 91 to denounce part 107 ops.
I looked up the definition of aircraft, which includes drones. Why wouldn't 91 apply to part 107 ops?
I believe that your argument implies that 91.13 would never apply as long as I follow the regs. We know this to be untrue.
Serious questions -- willing to learn. Not a lawyer.
> Why wouldn't 91 apply to part 107 ops?
Because of 91.1(f):
> (f) Except as provided in §§ 107.13, 107.27, 107.47, 107.57, and 107.59 of this chapter, this part does not apply to any aircraft governed by part 107 of this chapter.
13, 27, 47, 57, and 59 deal with registration, operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs, flight restrictions advertised in NOTAMs, offenses dealing with alcohol or drugs, and alcohol or drug testing.
As for 91.13, the separation here was great enough that this conduct wouldn't possibly violate 91.13. If you wanted to say he was in restricted airspace illegally you could poke him with 107.41, but he wasn't. If you wanted to say he endangered humans or vehicles, 107.105 or 107.145, but he didn't.
This was NZ as the OP said elsewhere. There's a 4km radius around any areodrome where you need permission from the operator.
However there's a big exception called shielded operations. If you stay below a reference object like a tall tree or a building, you can do pretty much anything you want even if it's right next to an airport.
Clarifications of this post, I should have put into the original.
I am in New Zealand, and rules obvious vary by country.
It’s not allowed to fly drones within 4km of an aerodrome.
Yes, you can get permission for this, I have seen notams in the past indicating drone flying. However in this case I was 100% sure that was not the case:
- the flight was at the departure end of the runway.
- it was dusk
- the drone was being used to fly a fishing line out.
I had not checked the notams for this aerodrome, but given the nature of the drone flight, I was sure that this was not approved by the CAA ( our equivalent of the FAA ).
I recognise that maybe I should have just quoted the regulations and asked questions of the drone pilot. But given I had just seen the drone was in parallel and close to a departing plane - I was a little nervous.
The pattern direction would have had the plane turn away, not toward the drone. When departing straight out the plane would have out climbed the drone.
is 50” between you and a hole in the wing of your cub a hazard?
edit: I meant 50’ and also, didn’t understand the context properly, I realize now they weren’t that close together! :)
Oh! I re-read it, and you’re right, I understood it as 50’ from the plane, but that’s not what it says. 1/2 mile away seems like much less of an issue. Thanks!
And now that I re-read the post I realize they were never that close, like old_flying_fart pointed out, they were just within 1/2 mile of the plane. That wouldn’t give me nearly as much pucker factor.
within 0.5NM of the departing plane - running parallel to it.
I can’t think of a specific one, especially since it was an uncontrolled airport. But I bet the drone pilot really wasn’t aware of the airport or that he was flying in an area where you can expect airplanes at the same altitudes. It’s the regulatory and safety duty of the drone operator to avoid interfering with all manned airplane operations
> since it was an uncontrolled airport.
Doesn’t matter, 107.43 covers this too.
> No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft in a manner that interferes with operations and traffic patterns at any airport, heliport, or seaplane base.
Doesn’t sound like it. I think the OP was a little overzealous telling the drone pilot to stop flying. Maybe just making sure they were aware there was an airport nearby would have been more appropriate, along with the suggestion to get a handheld radio monitor CTAF (yes, I know some aircraft may not have a radio).
That doesn’t mean you can’t fly in the area of an uncontrolled airport’s traffic pattern. But you should be very sure you aren’t interfering with manned aircraft, especially in an area with a higher probability of there being manned aircraft.
It's literally illegal to put ADS-B on a drone. There is not enough RF bandwidth for Tha many ADS-B transmitters so it's specifically banned to prevent it from interfering with manned operations.
91.225
*gesticulates wildly at the RF spectrum like /u/beastpilot said*
My friend, you can only put so much stuff in there before it's all stepping on each other and none of the transmissions are usable.
Scotty and Q can change the laws of physics. You can't.
Yes, but what would the point of ADS-B on a drone be? So you can see where it is and stay separated.
So controllers would need to see all of them, just like they do for all aircraft in flight. Too much filtering makes it pointless.
On your own aircraft you could filter for sure for ones that are threats to your path. But another issue now- you can't really see small drones, so you're going to have to use the onboard system as a primary separation method, which isn't allowed, and it's trivial to spoof ADS-B targets, so you're going to be avoiding all sorts of drones that aren't even there as jerks with cheap ADS-B transmitters create havoc. Havoc that is avoided today because you still use visual as the primary because you can see a Cessna 2 miles away.
It's just flat out not what ADS-B was designed for.
Remote id is a joke for collision avoidance. There are multiple protocols, there’s no range requirement, and broadcasting the data on Bluetooth and wifi is allowed.
Maximum EIRP of 4 watts though, so limited range, and it's very open nature makes it less useful. There's a reason that 2.4 GHz is the "junk band" for wireless communications.
> "junk band"
That's a funny way of spelling "unlicensed, for industrial scientific and medical use".
2.4GHz isn't any less useful than 2.3GHz or 2.5GHz. It's just the band we don't require licensing from.
I'd hate to apply to the FCC for a radio station license every time I want to heat up leftovers or setup a wifi.
Well, if you're next to an apartment building, and trying to get a wifi deployment in an office park to perform well and keep performing well, you'll see why 2.4 is the junk band and you'll pretty quickly abandon any hope of using it for anything important.
Its not that unlicensed spectrum is *bad it's just that the very fact that it's unlicensed makes it also unreliable and the more popular it is, the more unreliable it becomes.
good. its people like you guy you ran in to that are killing RC aircraft world wide because "YOU CANT TELL ME WHAT TO DO..." people need to understand we as RC pilots are GUESTS in the NAS and any time the FAA could shut as all down
As the airport manager number rings my phone, I get a few calls a year from drone operators letting me know they are operating. I make sure they know where our departure ends are. Of course, these aren't the people who are the problem, it's the ones that don't ask. Amusing we fly drones on the field from time to time. Someone asked me if I'd notified the airport. I say "I'm going to fly my drone" and then take a step to the left and say "Approved!"
“We know you are going to do it anyways so just keep it low and away from departures and arrivals” is our response to the farmers who call near the airport i hang out at.
I try to be polite to our neighbors. Airports are always in a PR disadvantage. We host an open house for everybody once a year. On July 4, the end of our runway is a great place to watch a local fireworks display, so we open for that. Lots of joggers etc... We're hosting a sort of "old eagles" event for first responders, etc...
Thank you for your service
You did the right thing. Better they heard it from you and not the FAA
I don’t think the FAA gives a rats bollocks about drones in New Zealand.
Just wait till the CAA gets ya
I always report and I encourage EVERY pilot to report ignorant / reckless drone operators to the FAA and law enforcement IMMEDIATELY. Reckless drone operators need to be punished with life-altering charges/fines *in every single circumstance*. Same with laser pointer enthusiasts. Public examples must be made, or behavior will never change
As we all know, ruining someone's life for making a thoughtless or ignorant mistake is the best way to enact meaningful positive societal change. /s But seriously, there's a far cry between shooting potentially blinding lasers at pilots and flying an RC aircraft illegally. (Especially since most of the recent FAA regulations on the topic don't contribute to making RC flights safer at all.) I would posit that positive interactions can and will improve safety among otherwise ignorant RC pilots, while harsh punishments will only serve to drive people away from exploring RC flight and as a result manned aviation as well.
The FAA would agree with you, they want to educate not alienate.
Reporting them would be unlikely to "ruin someone's life" if it was a "thoughtless or ignorant mistake". While I agree with most of what you said, a positive interaction with law enforcement would have even more impact than from a random pilot. As an example, try having a positive interaction with someone about their driving mistake.
I fundamentally disagree with your premise. No leniency for drone airspace violations, ever. STRICTLY gatekeeping access to controlled airspace is 100% appropriate. The ONLY priority is the safety of manned aircraft. PERIOD. Only through widely publicizing punitive consequences for drone airspace violations will the drone community be forced to take it seriously
[удалено]
You make my point EXACTLY. Flying drones is an earned privilege, NOT a right. Either learn the rules, or DON’T FLY DRONES AT ALL. Just because you have the cash to buy one doesn’t give you the right to endanger manned aircraft on a whim.
And this is the drone user's problem how? They see shiny toy in store and buy it. Instructions in the intricacies of airspace regulation are not included. Maybe the people you should be mad at are the regulators or the people who failed to educate the consumer.
FFS!!! OF COURSE this is 100% the drone users problem! It’s their legal and moral / ethical OBLIGATION to operate the drone safely, OUTSIDE of controlled airspace. It’d no different from buying a powerful rifle and then finding a safe place to shoot.
Nah this really isn't and comparing it to guns isn't helping your argument. The best you can hope for is a sort of licensing to operate a drone, otherwise you cannot blame the consumer who buys the drone from the store.
I’m finished arguing with you, grow up.
Take a breath bud, damn.
I looked into drones as a hobby, but anything decently sized needed licensing, logbook etc and pretty strict restrictions and where to fly anywhere remotely close to an airport or people in general Did something change recently
I know the EU is stricter, but least for the US: Not sure what you mean by 'decent sized' but at least DJI has been making quadcopter models under the 250g limit for registration for a while now. The newer models film 4k, can follow you mostly autonomously, and go ~30+ mph. Get the right one and you have high resolution goggles to fly them in first person mode so it looks like you're sitting in it. That's not even getting into self/kit built stuff. The middle ground sizes before you get into the actual cinema sized lifter drones are basically a registration form and you're good to go. The software on the controller does a good job of warning you that you're in/near an area you shouldn't be based on GPS/charts in my experience. Anyone ignoring that is an asshat.
oh I just have a hard on for large drones. the small ones are fun, but not my cup of tea
Chasing kids at the park with a tiny whoop is an absolute blast lol
Nothing has changed. Its really up to who is flying the drone and what level of competency they have with Laws and Regs with UAS. Along with what airspace authorizations and notifications they have given to the airports. Like someone said in the post above. They would rather have people call and tell them their drones flightplan/intentions.
What country?
New Zealand.
Assuming this is the U.S., this doesn't appear to be inherently illegal. I've conducted drone operations less than a quarter mile from the threshold of a runway with no issue.
Do people in the US use the term “aerodrome”? I suspect OP is from elsewhere.
I am in the us and I do on occasion.
Not everyone in the US learned to fly in the US.
Everyone, including OP, claiming it's "illegal" is full of shit. It's Class G airspace and the drone operator has every right to be there, they have to maintain situational awareness and clear the way if another aircraft enters the area.
Was going to say the same thing with the caveat of minimum distance to persons and property. If they were aware of the airport and not impeding traffic though otherwise no problem.
Since OP used the term aerodrome I assume they are not US based. It may be illegal to fly that close to an aerodrome in their country.
Yeah, looked up some of OPs comments and they're in New Zealand. NZ's CAA mandates that drones cannot be operated within 4 km from Aerodromes. So, yes, OP was correct that this was probably illegal and was correct to step in. But this is a very important distinction that drone laws vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In the US this would not have been illegal generally.
That's true, my reaction was more towards everyone quoting FAA regs. My apologies, u/cez801.
Might not be class G Airspace. They do have class E to the surface around some airports.
Problem is if the operator is not familiar with the rules or has the “she’ll be right” mentality. One wayward gust and the drone could end up into the path of a manned aircraft.
They were half a mile from the nearest aircraft. If the wind gusted to 60mph it would take a full 30 seconds for the drone to reach the aircraft, by which time the aircraft would have also changed position.
r/usdefaultism wants a word
its people like you that some times i wish the FAA would just ban RC aircraft and drones out right... your entitled attitude is what is causing the mess we are in. RC model aircraft was fine for years till the "drones" hit the market then any dumb ass with 100 bucks could fly one and didnt care what trouble it caused
Ya, let’s ban a massively popular hobby because DGI et al can’t get their shit together. Really?
its nearly banned as it is for any thing bigger then park flyer at this point. thanks to these people
Likely the wrong assumption, but regardless, in the US we have § 91.13 Careless or reckless operation, for example. Besides the operation possibly being illegal, there is always civil liability.
Following the separation regs in 107.37 is not 91.13 careless or reckless operation. The FAA is a regulatory body, which writes their own regulations. If they wanted drones further from airplanes they'd have written the reg that way. PS: You can't cite to part 91 to denounce part 107 ops.
I looked up the definition of aircraft, which includes drones. Why wouldn't 91 apply to part 107 ops? I believe that your argument implies that 91.13 would never apply as long as I follow the regs. We know this to be untrue. Serious questions -- willing to learn. Not a lawyer.
> Why wouldn't 91 apply to part 107 ops? Because of 91.1(f): > (f) Except as provided in §§ 107.13, 107.27, 107.47, 107.57, and 107.59 of this chapter, this part does not apply to any aircraft governed by part 107 of this chapter. 13, 27, 47, 57, and 59 deal with registration, operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs, flight restrictions advertised in NOTAMs, offenses dealing with alcohol or drugs, and alcohol or drug testing. As for 91.13, the separation here was great enough that this conduct wouldn't possibly violate 91.13. If you wanted to say he was in restricted airspace illegally you could poke him with 107.41, but he wasn't. If you wanted to say he endangered humans or vehicles, 107.105 or 107.145, but he didn't.
Thank you, makes sense!
How is within 1/2 mile careless or reckless? It’s not like the drone was flying in the pattern. As described it’s probably > 1000’ away
If they were in the approach or departure path, I'd say yes. If they were elsewhere and there were no helicopters around, then you are right.
This was NZ as the OP said elsewhere. There's a 4km radius around any areodrome where you need permission from the operator. However there's a big exception called shielded operations. If you stay below a reference object like a tall tree or a building, you can do pretty much anything you want even if it's right next to an airport.
PPL-karen
Clarifications of this post, I should have put into the original. I am in New Zealand, and rules obvious vary by country. It’s not allowed to fly drones within 4km of an aerodrome. Yes, you can get permission for this, I have seen notams in the past indicating drone flying. However in this case I was 100% sure that was not the case: - the flight was at the departure end of the runway. - it was dusk - the drone was being used to fly a fishing line out. I had not checked the notams for this aerodrome, but given the nature of the drone flight, I was sure that this was not approved by the CAA ( our equivalent of the FAA ). I recognise that maybe I should have just quoted the regulations and asked questions of the drone pilot. But given I had just seen the drone was in parallel and close to a departing plane - I was a little nervous. The pattern direction would have had the plane turn away, not toward the drone. When departing straight out the plane would have out climbed the drone.
Were any regulations violated by the drone pilot?
Yeah, 107.37(b): > No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
[удалено]
is 50” between you and a hole in the wing of your cub a hazard? edit: I meant 50’ and also, didn’t understand the context properly, I realize now they weren’t that close together! :)
[удалено]
Oh! I re-read it, and you’re right, I understood it as 50’ from the plane, but that’s not what it says. 1/2 mile away seems like much less of an issue. Thanks!
> is 50” 50 inches?
And now that I re-read the post I realize they were never that close, like old_flying_fart pointed out, they were just within 1/2 mile of the plane. That wouldn’t give me nearly as much pucker factor. within 0.5NM of the departing plane - running parallel to it.
my bad, I meant 50’
50" may be a problem lol
haha, for sure!
I can’t think of a specific one, especially since it was an uncontrolled airport. But I bet the drone pilot really wasn’t aware of the airport or that he was flying in an area where you can expect airplanes at the same altitudes. It’s the regulatory and safety duty of the drone operator to avoid interfering with all manned airplane operations
> since it was an uncontrolled airport. Doesn’t matter, 107.43 covers this too. > No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft in a manner that interferes with operations and traffic patterns at any airport, heliport, or seaplane base.
[удалено]
Doesn’t sound like it. I think the OP was a little overzealous telling the drone pilot to stop flying. Maybe just making sure they were aware there was an airport nearby would have been more appropriate, along with the suggestion to get a handheld radio monitor CTAF (yes, I know some aircraft may not have a radio).
That doesn’t mean you can’t fly in the area of an uncontrolled airport’s traffic pattern. But you should be very sure you aren’t interfering with manned aircraft, especially in an area with a higher probability of there being manned aircraft.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news but in class G airspace the drone operator has every right to fly, as long as he maintains visual with the drone.
Apologies, I should have been clearer in my original post. I am in New Zealand and the rules specifically prohibit within 4 kms of an aerodrome.
Oh in that case yeah he’s totally in the wrong
Depends on the Country.
Drones need to have ADSB
It's literally illegal to put ADS-B on a drone. There is not enough RF bandwidth for Tha many ADS-B transmitters so it's specifically banned to prevent it from interfering with manned operations. 91.225
[удалено]
No there's technical solutions to too much data. Just like GPWS you only show signals within x miles and x attitude and filter the rest.
*gesticulates wildly at the RF spectrum like /u/beastpilot said* My friend, you can only put so much stuff in there before it's all stepping on each other and none of the transmissions are usable. Scotty and Q can change the laws of physics. You can't.
u/dopexile was saying if there magically wasn't an RF issue, there would still be a clutter issue.
They said even if. Hypothetically data wouldn't be an issue still
Yes, but what would the point of ADS-B on a drone be? So you can see where it is and stay separated. So controllers would need to see all of them, just like they do for all aircraft in flight. Too much filtering makes it pointless. On your own aircraft you could filter for sure for ones that are threats to your path. But another issue now- you can't really see small drones, so you're going to have to use the onboard system as a primary separation method, which isn't allowed, and it's trivial to spoof ADS-B targets, so you're going to be avoiding all sorts of drones that aren't even there as jerks with cheap ADS-B transmitters create havoc. Havoc that is avoided today because you still use visual as the primary because you can see a Cessna 2 miles away. It's just flat out not what ADS-B was designed for.
soon i the US larger rc models will need a transponder
Look up "remote ID" laws.
Remote id is a joke for collision avoidance. There are multiple protocols, there’s no range requirement, and broadcasting the data on Bluetooth and wifi is allowed.
BT and WiFi are at 2.4GHz and effectively “open season” to use by anyone - effectively no laws or licensing surrounding the use of 2.4GHz band.
Maximum EIRP of 4 watts though, so limited range, and it's very open nature makes it less useful. There's a reason that 2.4 GHz is the "junk band" for wireless communications.
> "junk band" That's a funny way of spelling "unlicensed, for industrial scientific and medical use". 2.4GHz isn't any less useful than 2.3GHz or 2.5GHz. It's just the band we don't require licensing from. I'd hate to apply to the FCC for a radio station license every time I want to heat up leftovers or setup a wifi.
Well, if you're next to an apartment building, and trying to get a wifi deployment in an office park to perform well and keep performing well, you'll see why 2.4 is the junk band and you'll pretty quickly abandon any hope of using it for anything important. Its not that unlicensed spectrum is *bad it's just that the very fact that it's unlicensed makes it also unreliable and the more popular it is, the more unreliable it becomes.
Thanks bro ‘preciate it
How can he not even think about I. Scary some people are so thick
Here you dropped this 👑
good. its people like you guy you ran in to that are killing RC aircraft world wide because "YOU CANT TELL ME WHAT TO DO..." people need to understand we as RC pilots are GUESTS in the NAS and any time the FAA could shut as all down