Government UAS pilot reported that while operating their UAS during a law enforcement mission a helicopter from another law enforcement unit entered the area; resulting in an airborne conflict between the two aircraft due to an incorrect software setting that has been corrected.

Narrative

On Day 0 at approximately XA34 hours; Law Enforcement A dispatch received a call from Highway Patrol asking for assistance with an occupied stolen car that a officer was following in the area. Law Enforcement A Officers do not have direct communication with highway patrol officers because each agency is on a different radio frequency; so communication was a challenge. The Drone First Responder (DFR) teleoperator; initiated the launch of the Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) from the Hospital location and ascended to an altitude of 253.3 feet above ground level (AGL); as indicated by the software altimeter. The teleoperator flew the UAS to the area to assist in locating the stolen car. UAS arrived on the scene and found the vehicle. The stolen car made several turns and drove around numerous streets. There were no police officers on the scene; so the teleoperator maintained visual contact with the stolen car while it was driving and ultimately stopped. The teleoperator continued monitoring as the vehicle's occupants exited to flee the area and evade responding officers. The teleoperator continued to provide situational updates to officers while maintaining the drone's position. Upon the arrival of officers; the drone returned to its launch location. The flight's altitude was consistently maintained at 253.3 feet above ground level (AGL). After the UAS cleared the area and returned to home point; a helicopter from Law Enforcement B unit contacted the teleoperator; inquiring whether Law Enforcement A DFR was involved in the operation. The teleoperator informed the helicopter that Law Enforcement A DFR was on the scene; provided the displayed altitude (approx. 250 AGL); and confirmed that the drone had exited the area and returned to its home point. The helicopter informed the teleoperator that he believed Law Enforcement A DFR drone was higher than the altitude provided. The teleoperator again confirmed through the software that the altitude was approximately 250 AGL. After the discussion; the teleoperator informed leadership. According to the Remote Pilot in Command (RPIC) stationed at the launch site (ZZZ); the RPIC observed the helicopter entering the airspace. The RPIC promptly radioed the teleoperator to inform them of the helicopter's presence near the drone's operational area. Upon checking his phone for the helicopter's AGL status; the RPIC noted that the aircraft was operating at 700 feet of Barometric Altitude. The RPIC could monitor the UAS position and altitude using the software application; confirming that the drone was maintaining an altitude between 250 and 300 feet AGL. The RPIC did not perceive any immediate safety concerns; as the helicopter maintained a consistent orbit and did not descend during the operation. The drone subsequently initiated a Return-to-Home (RTH) maneuver and safely returned to the launch site while the helicopter exited the airspace. The Law Enforcement A PD (Police Department) Teleoperator and Law Enforcement B Chief Pilot discussed this particular call for service. The Chief Pilot relayed that the helicopter only noticed the UAS in the air once they were on the scene for a few minutes. The Chief Pilot also stated that the helicopter pilot felt the drone appeared to be at a high altitude since they could see the make and model of the UAS; indicating that it was physically close to them in the airspace. Though there was a discussion about how close the UAS was to the helicopter; the Chief Pilot confirmed the UAS did not cause an emergency because it appeared to be avoiding its (helicopter) orbit. Per the Law Enforcement B Chief Pilot; the helicopter had a safe buffer distance from the UAS while in the air. The Law Enforcement B Chief Pilot and Law Enforcement A PD UAS Person A discussed the incident. The Chief Pilot mentioned his concerns about that particular flight in question and the Law Enforcement A PD UAS' altitude in relation to the helicopter; believing it was above 400'AGL. The PD UAS Person A confirmed that a thorough investigation would be conducted to review Law Enforcement A PD DFR operations. The PD UAS Person A expressed concern regarding the lack of communication between Law Enforcement A PD and Law Enforcement B PD during the flight. Following the discussion; the Law Enforcement A PD chain of command was notified; and Law Enforcement A PD DFR program was placed in a safety standdown until the aircraft's AGL could be verified. The safety standdown was to review and discuss this incident internally and mitigate potential future safety issues. The goal of the Law Enforcement A PD is to ensure we comply with the rules and regulations set forth by the FAA. In response to the potential safety concern; Law Enforcement A PD implemented a safety standdown and suspended all DFR operations pending further investigation. The Law Enforcement A PD immediately notified the software provider and provided them with a comprehensive overview of the incident. The software provider thoroughly analyzed our settings to determine the accuracy of our AGL readings during the incident. The investigation revealed incorrect software settings for Law Enforcement A UAS AGL during flight. Specifically; during the incident; the teleoperator verified that the instrumentation panel read approximately 250 AGL. During the safety standdown; the software provider updated its software. The software update included an 'AGL mode' in the software. AGL mode displays the correct above ground level for the UAS teleoperator. After completing a review of the flight; the software provider determined the UAS' altitude during the flight in question was 465 AGL due to the changes in topography. Law Enforcement A PD has installed the equipment for the new software; which assists with adjusting AGL during flight while factoring in elevation changes. The software provider updated the settings to ensure accurate AGL readings in the future. As an additional precaution; Law Enforcement A PD reset the geofencing parameters to align with the corrected telemetry data. In addition to updating the telepresence software; the Law Enforcement A PD UAS Person A discussed the flight with the Law Enforcement B PD Chief Pilot. During this conversation; the results from the software provider's analysis were shared; explicitly highlighting the calibration error that led to an incorrect AGL reading. Law Enforcement B PD and the software provider reviewed the audit and developed corrective measures to avoid future occurrences. This review ensured all parties understood the situation and the steps to prevent future occurrences. Another corrective measure is to improve Communications between Law Enforcement B PD aircraft and the Law Enforcement A PD teleoperator. Law Enforcement B PD will ensure they provide notice when entering ZZZ airspace. The Law Enforcement A PD teleoperator will also provide notice when operating with a helicopter in the airspace. Also; the Law Enforcement A Police Dispatch Center will ensure notification is aired when a Law Enforcement A UAS and helicopter operate simultaneously to add redundancy and ensure all pilots know each other. The Chief Pilot and Law Enforcement A will continue communications to ensure this incident does not happen again. It is important to note that there was no near-miss situation during this flight. The Remote Pilot in Command (RPIC) had visual confirmation of a helicopter in the vicinity and did not see that the drone was not operating within the helicopter's airspace or too close to the aircraft. Following the software update; the software provider conducted an in-person comprehensive system check to ensure all telemetry data was accurate and functioning correctly. The software issue has since been resolved; and all systems are operating properly. In addition; effective immediately; Law Enforcement A PD has a new radio procedure for UAS protocol when utilizing law enforcement air support. When a police helicopter enters our jurisdiction; and Law Enforcement A PD is utilizing UAS; Law Enforcement A dispatch shall immediately notify the assisting air support via primary radio of the location of Law Enforcement A PD drone and their call sign. After the notification; the responsible dispatcher will annotate the notification system for further reference. The DFR pilot and the police helicopter pilot will coordinate their efforts to deconflict air space.