Drones threatening commercial a/c?
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
But the FAA appealed the decision to the full NTSB, and today's decision cited an FAA advisory that calls for model aircraft to be flown only at altitudes of 400 feet above ground and lower. It also noted FAA rules that prevent operating an aircraft "in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."
Is the old Trappy case still going on?
That guy is a embarrassment to the rest of us. But the precedents that case creates will cause a draconian kneejerk reaction for the rest of us....
That guy is a embarrassment to the rest of us. But the precedents that case creates will cause a draconian kneejerk reaction for the rest of us....
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been in the air transport industry since 1969, in a number of different sectors, eg airline management, airport management and engineering, in a number of different countries, eg UK, UAE, Oman, Jordan, USA, Israel (Gaza), Tunisia, Greece and the Philippines. Before that I was in the military for 10 years, including the final 3 years working as an Intelligence officer in the Gulf region. At various times, and in various ways, I have been closely involved in anti-terrorist and aviation security.
In my view, the free availability of the sophisticated drones that are around now, as well as of the more and more sophisticated ones that are coming fast down the line, represents the biggest threat to air transport (to say nothing of humanity as a whole) that has been seen so far, not excluding hijacking by suicidal maniacs, SAM firings by rogue military forces, or Muslim and other religious extremists.
The threat comes from unintentional collisions, or from terrorist attacks for which drones can be used in several ways.
The threat cannot be diminished by laws governing their operation, for the obvious reason that laws are obeyed only by the good.
The ONLY way that the threat can be reduced to as low as reasonably practical is to impose the same controls on their manufacture and distribution that apply to dangerous, ie nuclear, weapons, with very long prison sentences for breaking the law.
And this needs to be done sooner rather than later. Any drone is a threat to safety, or a dangerous weapon if the user wants it to be, and they are out there, now, in the hands of idiots and terrorists.
In my view, the free availability of the sophisticated drones that are around now, as well as of the more and more sophisticated ones that are coming fast down the line, represents the biggest threat to air transport (to say nothing of humanity as a whole) that has been seen so far, not excluding hijacking by suicidal maniacs, SAM firings by rogue military forces, or Muslim and other religious extremists.
The threat comes from unintentional collisions, or from terrorist attacks for which drones can be used in several ways.
The threat cannot be diminished by laws governing their operation, for the obvious reason that laws are obeyed only by the good.
The ONLY way that the threat can be reduced to as low as reasonably practical is to impose the same controls on their manufacture and distribution that apply to dangerous, ie nuclear, weapons, with very long prison sentences for breaking the law.
And this needs to be done sooner rather than later. Any drone is a threat to safety, or a dangerous weapon if the user wants it to be, and they are out there, now, in the hands of idiots and terrorists.
Last edited by Capot; 22nd Nov 2014 at 18:20.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my view, the free availability of the sophisticated drones that are around now, as well as of the more and more sophisticated ones that are coming fast down the line, represents the biggest threat to air transport (to say nothing of humanity as a whole) that has been seen so far, not excluding hijacking by suicidal maniacs, SAM firings by rogue military forces, or Muslim and other religious extremists.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Somewhere between here an there
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Microburst2002 (Post #32) and Capot (Post #44) --
Thank you very much for your words of wisdom.
Stone-age beliefs and psychology and 21st century technology is a lethal combination.
Thank you very much for your words of wisdom.
Stone-age beliefs and psychology and 21st century technology is a lethal combination.
Last edited by ConnieLover; 22nd Nov 2014 at 19:53. Reason: Added Reply numbers for clarity
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well they can try but the regulations down to that level will be unenforceable. Will police be stopping 10 year olds with $19 electric helicopters? Once regulations are unenforceable they lapse into disrepute.
Like most other flotsam and jetsam regulations in aviation
It will require a statistical balance between avoidance of a hazardous encounter in balance with the damage tolerance of the aircraft and its systems.
We're going to need data in encounters and hopefully none are actually fatal. Perhaps there are some similar experiences already in the data base
It will require a statistical balance between avoidance of a hazardous encounter in balance with the damage tolerance of the aircraft and its systems.
We're going to need data in encounters and hopefully none are actually fatal. Perhaps there are some similar experiences already in the data base
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know enough about the subject to comment with authority but intuitively it seems that they constitute a danger, as others here have said. This report seems to support that.
Three commercial pilots reported seeing drones, some flying as high as 3,000 feet, near their landing approaches at New York's John F Kennedy Airport.
The FBI and the FAA said they were looking into the reports, the most recent of which came on Wednesday at 1:50 pm local time. The pilot of JetBlue flight B6842 from Savannah, Georgia, noticed an unmanned craft about two miles from the runway, the FAA said in a statement.
"We are aware of it and are looking into it with our partners," FBI spokesman Chris Sinos said.
Pilots of two other passenger planes reported seeing a drone flying at altitudes of between 2,000-3,000 feet on their final approach to the airport just after 8 pm on Sunday, the FAA statement said.
The unmanned craft was seen about 10 miles from the runway, according to information given to authorities by the pilot of Delta flight DL383 from San Diego and the pilot of Virgin Atlantic flight VS9 from London.
Hobbyists who fly drones must follow the same rules as those for model aircraft - no higher than 400 feet and no closer than 5 miles to an airport, with the flying object always visible to the operator, said FAA spokesman Jim Peters.
None of the three pilots took evasive action, the FAA said.
"All three flights landed safely," the FAA statement said.
In July, a New York police helicopter was forced off course at 2,000 feet in the dark skies near George Washington Bridge by a drone that flew too close. Two New York men were arrested on charges of reckless endangerment.
(Reuters)
The FBI and the FAA said they were looking into the reports, the most recent of which came on Wednesday at 1:50 pm local time. The pilot of JetBlue flight B6842 from Savannah, Georgia, noticed an unmanned craft about two miles from the runway, the FAA said in a statement.
"We are aware of it and are looking into it with our partners," FBI spokesman Chris Sinos said.
Pilots of two other passenger planes reported seeing a drone flying at altitudes of between 2,000-3,000 feet on their final approach to the airport just after 8 pm on Sunday, the FAA statement said.
The unmanned craft was seen about 10 miles from the runway, according to information given to authorities by the pilot of Delta flight DL383 from San Diego and the pilot of Virgin Atlantic flight VS9 from London.
Hobbyists who fly drones must follow the same rules as those for model aircraft - no higher than 400 feet and no closer than 5 miles to an airport, with the flying object always visible to the operator, said FAA spokesman Jim Peters.
None of the three pilots took evasive action, the FAA said.
"All three flights landed safely," the FAA statement said.
In July, a New York police helicopter was forced off course at 2,000 feet in the dark skies near George Washington Bridge by a drone that flew too close. Two New York men were arrested on charges of reckless endangerment.
(Reuters)
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One near the approach to DXB recently, seen by aircraft at around 5500 feet. All movements suspended until the police chopper had a look but seen nothing. No idea who owned it, where it came from or went to.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: ZRH
Age: 43
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Approach to LCY yesterday morning, just past the QE2 Bridge / Dartford crossing I was idly taking in the views of London when some type of blended-wing aircraft flew right past us in the other direction (west to east), passing under the wing, I almost cacked myself. It had a wingspan of 40-50cm I guess. I thought my eyes were deceiving me until I heard a guy a few rows back saying "Did you see that". I pointed it out to the cabin crew when de-boarding to which the reply was “oh thanks for letting me know”.
Last edited by flight_mode; 25th Nov 2014 at 15:54. Reason: spelling
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just past the QE2 Bridge / Dartford crossing ............ blended-wing aircraft flew right past us in the other direction (west to east), passing under the wing,
hopefully none are actually fatal.
When will the denizens in the Belgrano find time, between tea-breaks, meetings, team-building etc to start to worry that it might be a good idea to do something immediate, positive and effective to prevent the accident before it happens rather than waiting, in the traditional way, until after there is a hole in the ground with bodies in it, and then blaming everyone else for their failure to ensure aviation safety?
Controversial, moi?
When will the denizens in the Belgrano find time, between tea-breaks, meetings, team-building etc to start to worry that it might be a good idea to do something immediate, positive and effective to prevent the accident before it happens rather than waiting, in the traditional way, until after there is a hole in the ground with bodies in it, and then blaming everyone else for their failure to ensure aviation safety?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flag up the issue at Minister level in the UK, as well as in the top levels of EASA, that unless these toys/weapons are banned from sale now, with criminal penalties for infringement, it's simply a matter of time until a serious crash/terrorist crime will take place, and that the danger exists now, not next year. It should also be a crime to own and/or operate one in the UK at least, preferably the civilised world..
The measured bureaucratic processes of procrastination, consultation, drafting etc etc have to be short-circuited, no matter how many people's noses are put out of joint.
It is not impossible to do this; imagine how quickly it will happen if there is an accident caused by an idiot with one of these "toys", especially one over a large city like London.
And I'll bet £1,000 on the existence of a group of extremists, probably in the UK, with at least one of these things and engaged now in working out the best way to use it against a high-profile target such as a commercial airliner on the approach to LCY or LHR 28L/R.
I'm well aware of the complacent view that they are only another kind of model aircraft, which have been flying for years with no problem. But they are not, there is a world of difference.
The measured bureaucratic processes of procrastination, consultation, drafting etc etc have to be short-circuited, no matter how many people's noses are put out of joint.
It is not impossible to do this; imagine how quickly it will happen if there is an accident caused by an idiot with one of these "toys", especially one over a large city like London.
And I'll bet £1,000 on the existence of a group of extremists, probably in the UK, with at least one of these things and engaged now in working out the best way to use it against a high-profile target such as a commercial airliner on the approach to LCY or LHR 28L/R.
I'm well aware of the complacent view that they are only another kind of model aircraft, which have been flying for years with no problem. But they are not, there is a world of difference.
Controversial, moi?
And all the parts are freely available to build your own. No amount of legislation will stop the reckless or those with criminal intent.
A bit like banning hand guns after Dunblane more draconian legislation only penalises the legitimate.
A bit like banning hand guns after Dunblane more draconian legislation only penalises the legitimate.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And all the parts are freely available to build your own. No amount of legislation will stop the reckless or those with criminal intent
Now there are complete, working models on sale, available to all and sundry with no expertise or knowledge whatsoever, and that's why the danger exists.
I detect in some posts the world-weary "'twas ever thus, what can we do, can't stop progress" approach.
That will last until there is a major accident in the USA caused by an unregulated drone, exactly as TWA 800 finally woke the industry into action to remove a danger everyone knew about, which had caused many fuel tank explosions before the one in TWA 800.
Even a drone-related accident in Europe might wake up the industry. Who knows.
When it happens, prevention will suddenly become do-able. What a pity we can never learn the lessons of the past and act to prevent the tragedy before it happens.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capot
You are talking as if a couple of crashes is the worst thing that can happen in the world.
Sometimes trying to make everything safe sucks the fun out of life..
Life is not a competition to find who can live the longest you know.
If you have concerns about public safety, why not start with the actually dangerous parts of human existence rather than the single safest mode of transport ever invented.
Over one million people die ever year on the road but where is the uproar? We accept it because we deem it acceptable.
Just like drones
You are talking as if a couple of crashes is the worst thing that can happen in the world.
Sometimes trying to make everything safe sucks the fun out of life..
Life is not a competition to find who can live the longest you know.
If you have concerns about public safety, why not start with the actually dangerous parts of human existence rather than the single safest mode of transport ever invented.
Over one million people die ever year on the road but where is the uproar? We accept it because we deem it acceptable.
Just like drones
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist - Whoa... “a couple of crashes”... ouch. Not acceptable. And I dont think anyone deems road accidents acceptable either. Road safety continues to improve, people are actively working on it. “making everything safer sucks the fun out of life”... you cant be serious. Not improving safety sucks the life out of life, how are you going to have fun then. Airline safety cant be compared to road safety for a number of reasons, transport aircraft are operated by large organisations, made up of skipled professionals, with vast resources devoted to safety,and rigorous standards. To participate in road traffic all you need is a bicycle, there's essentially no requirements, no training, no team, no professionals, few standards. 10 low income countries stand for about half the world's road fatalities, and a slightly bigger group of countries with 50% of the worlds vehicles, create 90% of fatalities. Safety improvements are also a resource issue, for some, its almost a “luxury, and not all countries can afford the same level of safety. Airline and road safety is like comparing apples to oranges. Yet both are continuously improving, within their particular constraints. Thats the most important after all, that we keep improving safety. Your post is misleading, Road accident rates are no excuse not to keep improving airline safety.
Last edited by deptrai; 26th Nov 2014 at 05:50.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More in today's NY Times:
Now, Anyone Can Afford a Drone. Heaven Help Us.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/te...erns.html?_r=0
Capot, I'm afraid this may be kind of like trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
Now, Anyone Can Afford a Drone. Heaven Help Us.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/te...erns.html?_r=0
Capot, I'm afraid this may be kind of like trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Answer is to legislate in the same way as Aircraft that require Pilots.
1. The Drone/UAV must hold a certificate of Airworthiness.
2. The operator/Pilot must complete a recognised course and hold the appropriate licence.
3. And if the Drone/UAV is being used in a commercial sense - an Air Operators Certificate must be obtained. And the Pilots must obtain a commercial licence.
4. Lastly it should be enforced that the companies or manufacturers of these products are not permitted to sell these Airborne devices - unless the purchaser can prove that he/she complies with the above.
1. The Drone/UAV must hold a certificate of Airworthiness.
2. The operator/Pilot must complete a recognised course and hold the appropriate licence.
3. And if the Drone/UAV is being used in a commercial sense - an Air Operators Certificate must be obtained. And the Pilots must obtain a commercial licence.
4. Lastly it should be enforced that the companies or manufacturers of these products are not permitted to sell these Airborne devices - unless the purchaser can prove that he/she complies with the above.