Near miss with drone
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Near miss with drone
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?
Last edited by ChickenHouse; 12th Aug 2014 at 12:12.
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".
Last edited by Less Hair; 13th Aug 2014 at 10:17.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beware of anything for which there is official guidance!
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!
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!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And EASA's head stilling the sand !
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Dorset
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Bob
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first of many I guess........
£4,000 fine for man who crashed model plane near nuclear shipyard | Mail Online
£4,000 fine for man who crashed model plane near nuclear shipyard | Mail Online
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
There'll be lots of tears and gnashing of teeth when it dawns what wonderfull weapon systems these are in the wrong hands.
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?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Flyingmac,
I like your thinking...
Has anyone else noticed how closely these things resemble pheasants?
Gnat USA - Radio Controlled Airplane Targets and Shotgun Shooting Sport
How long before the animal rights people develop pheasants that can return fire?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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