Near miss with drone

[ChickenHouse]

Last week I almost had a dronestrike at slightly above 2.000ft AGL. Did you recognize that these bloody things go that high up? I just did some "research" on YouTube and saw bloodfreezing videos of drones going above clouds. I looked up the technical data from these beasts and they are something like 3 pounds heavy pieces potentially hovering around at our typical flight altitudes. I also talked to some local heros, who changed their car tuning habits into drone flying and found out they have not the simplest clue what airspaces are. Is there a big thread coming?

[Less Hair]

Some time ago flying a Cessna VFR in the LA aerea I had ATC advising me of conflicting traffic at my altitude and gave me directions to look for and avoid a drone. The drone itself responded as well: "I am looking for traffic".

[Johnm]

Is there a big thread coming? Possibly and the prosecutions have already started......

[gpn01]

The CAA has been writing guidance for UAV operations since 2001. The current document is "CAP 722: Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace - Guidance". This includes the statement that, outside controled/segregated airspace, UAV's should not be operated above 400'.

The reality of autonomous operations (i.e. UAV's, UACV's, drones, etc) is that they'll become increasingly pervasive across the World. Not only are they use by the military for offence/defence (e.g. Reaper and Predator) but also by relief agencies for surveilance and will be increasingly used for things like domestic crop monitoring (probably people monitoring too!).

Ever since there was the debate about ADS-B vs transponders and the expansion of "controlled airspace" the term "interoperability" has been adopted to reflect the (current) constraint for drones to properly operate a see and be seen principle for VFR when operated beyond visual range of its operator (or autonomously). The only thing that keeps us away from seeing the prophesy of Terminator coming true is that the computer network to manage the devices isn't called SkyNet. :-( Meanwhile, lookout, lookout, lookout!

[Above The Clouds]

If it had camera's I guess the guy on the other end got a surprise as well. :)

[Capt Kremmen]

There'll be lots of tears and gnashing of teeth when it dawns what wonderfull weapon systems these are in the wrong hands.

[gasax]

I was reading a French ULM magazine last month - in it an article for an APP which defines airspace for drone drivers.....

[A and C]

The witless plebs at EASA are helping us with this problem by making it as hard as posable to help avoid these drone things with their over the top certification requirments for ADS-B, the idiots are insisting that each aircraft type has an STC written for fitment of ADS-B equipment.......So the same bit of kit in a Cessna requires a different STC from that fitted to a Piper and STC's cost about € 17 K to get approved.

The result of this is an increasing number of aircraft that have the ADS-B anti collision kit fitted but by mandate of the so called European Aviation Safety Authority they must keep this switched off !

Perhaps the head of EASA would like to tell us why he obstructing the use of ADS-B and not encouraging the use of this important safety aid ?

[Bob Bevan]

Love them or loath them, UAVs are going to be a fact of life because the practical commerical applications of them are so diverse and compelling. The challenge is to ensure that the regulators catch up with the reality, including around licencing and insurance requirements.

Bob

[fisbangwollop]

The first of many I guess........
£4,000 fine for man who crashed model plane near nuclear shipyard | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2595245/First-UK-prosecution-dangerous-driving-DRONE-Man-fined-800-illegal-flying-unmanned-aircraft.html)

[Crash one]

We were approached at our strip by an apparently responsible (Hexacopter) operator asking what height we fly at. Private owner with no clue could buy this kit for £500 & cause mayhem without knowing a thing about CAA, ANO, Airspace. One day there will be a big bang & no one will know why as the wreckage loses the evidence.

[Flyingmac]

Has anyone else noticed how closely these things resemble pheasants?

[FakePilot]

There'll be lots of tears and gnashing of teeth when it dawns what wonderfull weapon systems these are in the wrong hands.

All the nifty components separately and in toys now would have been cutting edge military stuff 20-30 years ago.

There's already been some incidents. Like the German Chancellor.

But the best part is how amusing it will be to watch politicians and the idiots they pander to trying to control this technology without understanding any of it. Of course, what's new?

"Improvised Guided Munitions" anyone?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I assume there's no reason why little guns that can be fired electrically can't be sold over the counter in the US of A.

Can you buy them already?

[tmmorris]

I'm guessing the OP was talking about commercially available hexacopters/quad copters tired with cameras for leisure use, rather than 'proper' UAVs. There's no chance the former will have ADS-B...

Flyingmac,

I like your thinking...

[abgd]

Has anyone else noticed how closely these things resemble pheasants?

Yes, and the pheasants are grateful:

Gnat USA - Radio Controlled Airplane Targets and Shotgun Shooting Sport (http://www.gnatusa.com/)

How long before the animal rights people develop pheasants that can return fire?

[abgd]

And for that matter, how about first-person-view aerial combat with real guns?

[hoodie]

I assume there's no reason why little guns that can be fired electrically can't be sold over the counter in the US of A.

Can you buy them already?

SNPJMk2fgJU

[John R81]

This article appeared in the Michigan Farm News (https://www.michfb.com/MI/Farm_News/Content/Front_Page/Varnum_Law_of_the_Land/It_s_a_bird___It_s_a_plane___It_s_UAV,_man/)

No machine guns, though

[GipsyMagpie]

When you examine the rules its amazing what is actually permitted. Firstly there is visual range. Notionally as long as you can see it (notionally 400m horizontally and 400 ft vertically) then they can fly them without telling anyone. Secondly there is mass. As long as its below 7kg they can fly it without telling anyone. Thirdly there is cameras...as long as it doesn't carry one its a Small Unmanned Aircraft (SUA). And the best bit? They can fly them inside an ATZ without asking any permission. We found someone in ours and checked the rules.

However if they carry a camera they become a Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft (SUSA) which can trip them up for capturing pictures of people who haven't given permission. I think its some data protection law that applies.

Of course if they flew around in your departure lane that's reckless endangerment but its probably too late because you'll have hit them.

So in summary, below 400ft a 7kg UAV is perfectly legal and could be found anywhere. Above that they are arguably outside visual range and you could arguably report them. Good luck

[TCAS FAN]

GipsyMagpie

Mostly correct. CAP 722 provides more precise guidance.

[Ph1l]

I have built a completely autonomous drone....for £70!! Its an electric fixed wing based on an arduino board made of foam with a wingspan of about 1.4m and travels about 30mph. I can make it fly anywhere and at any height i choose by just clicking waypoints on a map and it will go and do it. I am a PPL holder and i only fly it where i can see and would fly any other model, usually any my airfield anyway, but if i can do that for £70 its a lethal weapon for no money. And when i say lethal weapon i mean any 14yr old kid who makes it fly at 2000ft just trying to learn something fun to something more sinister. As interesting as it is to learn how to do it, i can't help but think its quite scary.

APM | Open source autopilot (http://ardupilot.com)