Drones threatening commercial a/c?

[Mark in CA]

The Federal Aviation Administration gave the online retailer a waiver allowing flights as fast as 100 miles (161 kilometers) an hour and as high as 400 feet off the ground, according to a letter dated Wednesday posted on its website.

Amazon Receives New Delivery Drone Test Approval From U.S. FAA - Bloomberg Business (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-09/amazon-receives-new-delivery-drone-test-approval-from-u-s-faa)

[londonman]

100 mph.....jeez, that's some energy to be dissipated when it crashes into something. Are these Amazon things going to be pilotless as I can't see the economics of a 1:1 relationship between 'driver' and drone.

I can't help but think that society has really lost the plot. Does it really matter if your latest DVD of Game of Thrones takes a day or two longer to reach you?

[Captain_Snor]

From: News24 (http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Drone-cuts-short-Silver-Falcons-display-at-Rand-Show-20150406)

An unauthorised drone cut short a Silver Falcon aerobatic display at the Rand Show in Johannesburg on Friday, Netwerk24 reported.

A man launched his drone to take aerial photos while the South African Air Force’s Silver Falcon team was busy with its routine above the Nasrec showgrounds.

Air show commentator Brian Emmenis said he immediately requested the person flying the drone to land it.

Emmenis said the Silver Falcons ended the display shortly afterwards, while the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) had been informed about the incident.

It is illegal to fly such a device without authorisation. The drone was reportedly flying higher than 200 feet (60 metres).

Danger

A member of the Silver Falcon team told Netwerk24 such a device could endanger lives if it collided with a plane.

“The Silver Falcons fly at approximately 500km/h. Besides causing damage to the plane it, the debris could hit people. The plane could even crash,” the source said.

Show director Pula Dippenaar said organisers were aware of the incident.

“The Silver Falcons were already busy with their display when the drone was spotted above the trees,” Dippenaar said.

“The air show programme was delayed until the drone operator was found. The incident was in the hands of the relevant authorities for investigation,” she said.

“We are aware that drones are used for photography and we will keep this in mind for future accreditation,” Dippenaar said.

[737er]

It's just a matter of time before we read about a drone bringing down an airliner.

I hope I'm wrong, but when you look at the frequency of close calls worldwide..this one is a ticking bomb.

[mickjoebill]

Double Back,

It’s precisely this inequality between drone operator and pilot why I suggested mandatory strobes and/or a transponder....As I already said, strobes are cheap to install and operate,ts.
Mandatory Strobes will occasionaly seriously adversely affect photography and video applications. Particularly on days where there is airborn water or dust particles as they will be illuminated by the strobes.

[jaytee54]

It's just a matter of time before we read about a drone bringing down an airliner.

Why limit the discussion to drones? e.g. What about model rockets?

What about rifles, of which there are millions in the USA (not so many in Europe, not sure about Russia)?
How many airliners come in with a few bullet holes, or even neat rows of bullet holes? None I've heard of. Imagining problems isn't helping.

You can try banning drones, but it wouldn't work. But you have no chance of banning (in USA) those weapons that could do far more damage and are readily available to people with terror in mind. Americans seem happy to live with that risk.

If it is the nutjobs, who think it's fun to buzz an airliner, you want to contain, why not try some education?

[Ahernar]

"It is illegal to fly such a device without authorisation. The drone was reportedly flying higher than 200 feet (60 metres) "

Not really sure - they would have canceled the show if there was a stork flying "higher than 60m" ?
Why drones are special ?

(i'm not endorsing what he did , don't fly anything near air traffic should be common knowledge to any RC operator )

Another question
Would THIS "camera drone"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYe9O_qhJWs
get CAA to do some incident paperwork ?

[golfbananajam]

From the BBC website today (though heaven knows where runway one is)

Flights were diverted for a short time at Manchester Airport after a drone was spotted close to the flight path.
The police helicopter was scrambled at about 11:20 BST after flight crews on two separate planes reported seeing the drone in the airspace.
An investigation was carried out and Runway One closed for 20 minutes but nothing was found, police said.
An airport spokesman said some flights experienced short delays but all operations have now resumed as normal.
John Mayhew, general manager for air traffic services at Manchester Airport, said: "Flying drones in the close vicinity to any airport without permission is completely unacceptable, with the reported sighting causing delays to inbound and outbound traffic and the diversion of a small number aircraft to other airports.
"The matter has now been referred to the police."

[IcePack]

Hope (if caught) the drone operator gets landed with the diversion costs. That'll make "their" eyes water.

[lomapaseo]

One way of dealing with drones

Chimpanzee knocks drone out of sky with stick in Netherlands zoo (http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/downtime/chimpanzee-knocks-drone-out-of-sky-with-stick-in-netherlands-zoo/vi-AAaYuLO)

[Linktrained]

"Professional Drones"


Some may have seen demonstrations of near future drone operations at Dubai. These look as though people MAY be using drones for cleaning the exterior of skyscrapers. Or some others appeared to be used like helicopters, in a human rescue type operation.


When ? But THEY would want to stay away from aircraft, anyway !

[Capot]

If it is the nutjobs, who think it's fun to buzz an airliner, you want to contain, why not try some education?Because they're nutjobs, that's why. Your "education" would be laughed at.

One day, probably fairly soon, there will be a multiple loss of life resulting from a collision between a drone and an aircraft. It will be either accidental or deliberate. If US citizens are among the dead, global action to ban the sale of use of these things other than to and by responsible, trained people with a clearly useful purpose will swiftly follow. If European citizens are involved, the same action will eventually be taken, but the bureaucracy will take far, far longer.

What a pity that, as always, we are waiting for the bodies to pile up before acting forcefully to remove a known and obvious hazard. (EG - empty fuel tank ignition.)

No-one has a "right" to own and fly these things for their amusement, where and how they choose. Or if they do, I have an equal right to destroy (12-bore is loaded and ready) any that infringe my space.

I saw a drone being played with in a street in old Gdansk about 10 days ago, narrowly missing people including children, until it was caught and destroyed by an angry group. The stunned, impotent fury of the morons who were disturbing the peace with it was a joy to watch.

[lomapaseo]

What a pity that, as always, we are waiting for the bodies to pile up before acting forcefully to remove a known and obvious hazard. (EG - empty fuel tank ignition.)

How else would you measure safety?

The absence of bodies confirms that it's safe enough.

Do you have some other measure that can be applied that is descriptive enough other than emotional words fit for the news?

[bubbers44]

Over 50 years of thousands of RC models flying with no injuries of any person in any aircraft should convince us drones are no great danger. Sully would have rather hit a drone than those darn geese.

[Stallspincrashburn]

Traditionally, RC aeroplanes took time and skill to construct and equal time and skill to learn to fly. It was quite an expensive hobby, requiring skill and dedication. Therefore, those that practised it did so with forethought and an understanding of what they were doing. Indeed, the majority were aviation enthusiasts too. Flying mostly took place at club sites.

Now any fool can walk into any high-street store and for a few pounds can purchase a large flying machine that they can fly from their back garden, with no skill required. Their thought processes don't venture beyond their own selves to consider the danger that their actions may present to others.

Tell me, what'll be the difference between a drone going through a turbofan engine and a goose?

I was the captain of one of the jets involved in Monday's incident at Manchester. On a gin-clear day we had to hold and waste plenty of fuel whilst the issue was resolved. We landed to note the huge queue of aircraft waiting for departure. The drone was large enough to be visible to the naked eye even though it was a couple of miles from the airfield on the departure track. Thankfully the only harm done was to the environment, as several tonnes of kerosene was burnt to no end. It won't always be so. I've seen several drones and one large aerobatic RC model flying in sight of Heathrow whilst waiting for departure.

Idiot, chav culture. The same mentality that causes the morons to shine increasingly high-powered lasers at us at night.........

[Ahernar]

"Now any fool can walk into any high-street store and for a few pounds can purchase a large flying machine that they can fly from their back garden, with no skill required. Their thought processes don't venture beyond their own selves to consider the danger that their actions may present to others."

You are describing a bird brain .But i don't think airtraffic is ever diverted because of one bird 2 miles away . Why drones are special ?
I think there is much more "drone phobia" than real danger

Whatever , chances are before something silly would happen there will be sufficient arrests and legislation to make flying the hooby grade ones indesirable.
With the proffesional ones there is another thing , robotic aircrafts are desirable and sometime in the future , as their number increases same things that happens to the manned ones will happen to them (mid air collisions)

[CRayner]

Regrettably there have been numerous injuries and some deaths from operation of model aircraft. Admittedly I know of none from a collision between a model and a commercial passenger operation, but there certainly was a death of a hang glider pilot in southern England 20 or 30 years ago. We should not be complacent about this.

[Mark in CA]

Two articles in today's NY Times about drones, but neither involving aircraft. In one instance a drone, possibly laced with cesium, was found on the roof of the Japanese prime minister's office (http://goo.gl/HP6f5g). The other is about drones being used to smuggle contraband items into prisons (http://goo.gl/i4V1eP). Still, they do highlight the doubled-edged sword nature of these devices.

[Stallspincrashburn]

Please stop likening drones to birds.

Birds:

Light, squidgy and mostly feathers. When they impact the airframe they usually just go "splat!" They rarely cause any damage. We hit them regularly. I fly about 800 shorthaul hours per year and report bird strikes on average twice per. Most recently were five sparrows on departure from Athens. Most spectacular was a pigeon directly into the centre of the FO's windshield. If they hit a pitot tube then it's a bit more serious, as the gore can block the tube and cause our airspeed indicators to fail.

Most birds ingested into modern turbofans cause no damage whatsoever. Eighty-plus percent of the air flowing through the fan is bypass flow. The fan on the front is simply a glorified propellor. Only about a fifth of the air actually goes through the core. The soft bird is minced by the whirling knife blades of the fan and spat out in the cold, bypass flow. Only in the unlikely event of a small or medium sized bird going through core of the engine is damage or failure likely.

Large birds through the engine are a slightly different matter as their weight can damage the carefully balanced fan, bending blades and leading to rapid failure. I witnessed a heron go through a (Monarch?) 757 motor at Manchester a few years ago. The resulting sheet of flame as it disintegrated was terrifying.

Most birds, however, have some level of intelligence. Certainly more than those individuals presently flying drones within a few hundred meters of airports. When they see a larger bird, their first reaction is to avoid it and avoid becoming lunch. Again, larger birds have less fear. We regularly see swans crossing Heathrow at low level. But that's why airports employ bird scarers.

Drones:

Any drone hitting the fuselage, wings or empennage will cause damage. The heavier the drone, the greater the damage. Any drone going through the fan will destroy the engine.

We have legislation that makes it illegal to operate any flying device within a certain distance and height from an aerodrome. A few, professional drone operators undertake the proper training and respect the law. But the great majority neither know nor care about said laws. When a large and heavy drone can be purchased for a couple of hundred pounds or dollars by the same individuals who twenty years ago bought minimoto bikes to ride on residential streets and roads, do you really think you'll be able to persuade them to operate them with care and caution and within the law?

[Ahernar]

Very true but I was comparing the standard cheap (1000$ , 1 kg) drone to a single large bird .Both are dangerous but diverting traffic because of one or the other seems to be excessive . Better call the cops, usually a drone operator is very conspicuous , then the press will crucify him and scare the likeminded others .
200$ will get you a 100-200 gram toy , unable to climb over 20-30m and with some 8mins autonomy .

[lomapaseo]

Birds:

Light, squidgy and mostly feathers. When they impact the airframe they usually just go "splat!" They rarely cause any damage. We hit them regularly. I fly about 800 shorthaul hours per year and report bird strikes on average twice per. Most recently were five sparrows on departure from Athens. Most spectacular was a pigeon directly into the centre of the FO's windshield. If they hit a pitot tube then it's a bit more serious, as the gore can block the tube and cause our airspeed indicators to fail.

just a snippit quote from a post above.

But way off the mark!!

Nobody worries much about bird feathers .... it's what holds the feathers together that causes all the bird damage problems.

At least drones aren't expected to come in flocks and take out all your engines at once.

Summary

some birds cause damage and are a lot more populated than drones.


drones are expected to cause damage and are extremely rare to be hit

We need data to sort this out.

anybody willing to fly a four engine B747 into a flock of two drones and document the effects?

[Ahernar]

In this kind of collisions mass is all that counts . Every drone past 500g is dangerous . But what startles me is the loudness around the perceived threat to the passenger aviation (ridiculously small because of redundancies and the small intersection of flight envelopes - and that intersection is in protected and guarded space , at the airports ) and the relative silence from the small recreational aircraft and heli operators . They are flying closer to drones and probably have seen enough to judge them better . My 2 cents - drones are photographing earth objectives , closer means more resolution , there is no point on going past 100m alt . Ofc there will be some nuts breaking the norm , once every a couple of months in all the world but remember that large birds are breaking it daily at hundreds of airports .

[Capot]

The absence of bodies confirms that it's safe enough.The Bible, John, Chapter 11 Verse 35 says all that can be said about this view of how to know when something is safe. You could say the same about Trident missiles. Perfectly harmless, they are; look, no bodies.

[BigShip]

As a professional pilot since 30 years and former RC hobby pilot, as a youth, I am surprised about part of the nonsense posted here....

For example: "Somebody could clearly see the drone in a distance of 2 miles." I assume NM.
Congratulations to your good vision.

I fly a big bird for a major carrier and I fly a DJI drone since one year. I even take it with me on some trips where I can fly it by local law. By law, you got to have in my country insurance for RC aircrafts. ( 60-70 US$/year). I think a good idea. But I think the idea of the insurance was mostly for the risk of damage on the ground.

The drone I am flying is very advanced and very stable in flight. You let the controls go and it stands still. Most of the time people use drones, they are hovering and then move to another position slowly. They are slow moving because video is better if you are not flying with max speed ( ca. 40mph ).

The drone has a distance and height information transmitted all the time to your control device. If you are flying higher then 150m (450ft) you got a problem to see your drone. Flying out of clear sight is unlawful in every country I had been flying. The maximum distance I had been flying in a height of 55m was 300m and this was definitely too far, only with my heading information transmitted as well, I could fly back. The drone was to small and was way smaller then the size of a needlepin. ( I tested this only for you ! :) )

To me the drone is no thread other then a kite, if it is flown within eyesight. If you are flying outside of eyesight you are risking loosing it.

It might be a thread to helicopters flying low. My hometown is next to a clinic with two helicopter stationed there. Yes they are flying often below the minimum required above cities, but if they would fly over cities in the allowed altitude there shouldn´t be a problem.

Talking about real drones ( military style ) I definitely think we should imply more regulations here. These drones scare me more then the little toys you can buy.

Something that scares me too, is the weatherballons that I had already two near miss with in cruise flight. The just pass by in an altitude where you do not expect anything.

Last but not least, I would forbid bird flying in an altitude of 7500feet, this is dangerous.
Had a birdstrike that damaged the front of my wing. Rubberboot was O.K., but behind the boot, the material was crumbled in the size of a football.

If drones stay away from airports, which most better drones have in their software implemented ( nofly zones and altitude restrictions in the vicinity )
I think this is fine to fly.

As a helicopter pilot I would try to avoid altitudes below 150m when cruising, but I think safe pilots prefer higher altitudes anyway.

Otherwise, ban kite flying as well and get everything out of the sky except us.
By the way, the most sold drone, a DJI Vision drone has a weight of less then 1200 gramms and a size of 35cm with props installed and 24cm without. And the body of the drone is even smaller.

Something I also want to explain here, you usually got a wide angle mini camera on the drones. With a wide-angle camera, everything appears further away and you got to stay closer to the object if you are making a video or picture. If you go to an altitude of 75meter you already got a very, very wide view. More then you probably want.

Come with me and I show you how great this hobby is.

[Stallspincrashburn]

As a professional pilot since 30 years and former RC hobby pilot, as a youth, I am surprised about part of the nonsense posted here....

For example: "Somebody could clearly see the drone in a distance of 2 miles." I assume NM.
Congratulations to your good vision.

Well, I prostrate myself before you and your superior knowledge. I've only held my ATPL for twenty years (although I had a licence and flew some varied and interesting machinery seven years prior to going commercial). And I presently only skipper a narrow-body jet for a major carrier. And I only flew RC aircraft, as a kid/youth, for about ten years. And it was my First Officer who first spotted the drone as we taxied in.

But I must have imagined: seeing it myself, the queue of traffic (all heavies and mediums) waiting to depart 05L as some pillock flew his drone at approximately 1000' at 2nm on the extended centreline, the further delays to departures as the departure runway was switched to 23R with a 7kt tailwind and the subsequent police helicopter that was dispatched to find the numpty.

I apologise for talking about things that I do not know much about.....

[Ahernar]

Something is off here . The visual resolution for human eye is 3-4 arcmins . And this is when are looking hard at the object in cause , not glancing it from the sky . 4 arcmins equals aproximatively 3.5 meters at 2 miles . I think what you have seen wasn't the drone , but the police helicopter. As for the "drone" a party ballon blown by the slow wind inside the airport would fit the scenario nicely .

[deptrai]

This baby UAV seems very well-behaved while it is sucking in fuel in midair:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=21&v=rIRwsOG_AYQ

I am sure it must have been mentioned before in this thread, but UAV's, just like aircraft, are probably as safe/unsafe as their operators

[GoldwingSpain]

Facts.

Drones which can achieve more than a garden distance flight away costs $1000 and up. SO a few pounds model will only get you a few meters away.

You cannot see them at more than 300 meters distance even with binoculars so the ability to see one at 2 miles is not likely.

Anything larger than the size of a football and the costs spiral upwards very rapidly. Way beyond any chav's means.

[cwatters]

Few days old...

London airport police to use surveillance drones - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32431630)

Police guarding London airports will start using drones for surveillance following a review by counter-terrorism officers.

An 18-month analysis by the National Counter Terrorism Policing Headquarters, which helps develop police policy, found the technology could be "transformative".

Privacy campaigners said they were concerned about the plans.

Police are also to take over investigations into drone misuse.

[WillFlyForCheese]

Not sure if this has been reported already - but an aircraft on approach to Love Field encountered a drone at approximately 4-600ft.

Virgin America Pilot Reports Seeing Drone on Approach Into Dallas Love Field

A Virgin America pilot reported seeing a quadcopter drone ascend above him Tuesday night while on approach into Dallas Love Field Airport, city officials and the FAA say. According to a statement from City Manager Jose Torres, Dallas police were notified by the Love Field tower that a pilot on Virgin Flight 769 from New York LaGuardia to Dallas reported seeing the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) as they passed over the 19-story Crescent Hotel.

Video report here - with ATC recording:

Virgin America Pilot Reports Seeing Drone on Approach Into Dallas Love Field | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth (http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Drone-Flies-Above-Landing-Airplane-Dallas-Police-301664531.html)

[Ahernar]

To stop the hysteria ALL flying drones over 500g (a crow's weight) should have a mandatory baro sensor which prevents them to climb more than 400ft over start position . It's cheap ,5$ or so at the source , light (a couple of grams ) and has about 3-6 feet acuracy .I know what i'm saying it can be done cheaply .I would even mount them in triplicate in larger drones to guard against failure .DJI should take notice.

[Ian W]

To stop the hysteria ALL flying drones over 500g (a crow's weight) should have a mandatory baro sensor which prevents them to climb more than 400ft over start position . It's cheap ,5$ or so at the source , light (a couple of grams ) and has about 3-6 feet acuracy .I know what i'm saying it can be done cheaply .I would even mount them in triplicate in larger drones to guard against failure .DJI should take notice.

Probably fixed by adding a small piece of blutak to the sensor static port. :rolleyes:

[Ahernar]

It's a chip thinghie of some 2/2 mm . Will need a drop of glue to disable it but then 2 things will happen .One: the inertial system will be contradicted by the baro (accels and thr tells it that is going up , baro that is staying ) . Should generate autoland sequence if the divergence is too high.Second , the Baro will remain probably permanently disabled . Can be defeated by using a hacked firmware but the ideea was to eliminate the stupid casuals , the smart nuts will run one of these anyway :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBWAcNJf5pM

[G-CPTN]

Radar developed to detect small drones - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32572545)

[lomapaseo]

Radar developed to detect small drones - BBC News

will it also detect birds?

[Mark in CA]

The FAA said the initiative is intended to figure out how to safely allow the sophisticated operations that the commercial drone industry has been clamoring for and that are necessary to enable applications such as package delivery.

Under the project, Time Warner Inc. unit CNN will use drones to film in urban areas, BNSF will use them to fly hundreds of miles to inspect its railroads, and drone-maker PrecisionHawk Inc. will fly them beyond sight of the operator to collect data on crops.

FAA Works With CNN, BNSF to Study Drone Flights - WSJ (http://goo.gl/cQq5FL)

[Mark in CA]

A survey of more than 2,000 adults by the British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa) also showed that half think there should be prison sentences for those flying drones in a way that endangers an aircraft.


Pilots say poll shows public want strict curbs on flying drones in cities | Technology | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/11/pilots-say-poll-shows-public-want-strict-curbs-on-flying-drones-in-cities)


It's interesting to see how in Europe, the attitude about drones seems to be very defensive, very restrictive. In the US, on the other hand, it appears to be the start of a gold rush of drone development of all kinds, commercial and consumer.

[Jumpindan]

I have a hard time with drones. A non complient drone hit one of my former company's aircraft and killed four crewmembers a couple of years back. The drone climbed through it's assigned alltitude into RVSM airspace. They are more expensive to operate than a manned aircraft and once they stop communicating with their owners, there is no stopping them. Every person on this forum that has flown for more than a day has lost communications with ATC before. When this happens with a drone, the lack of a brain causes real concern for safety because after loss of lock/comms, a drone climbs uncommanded to the MSA for their entire route of flight. Also, as worthless as ALPA is, I would think they would be fighting tooth and nail to keep drones out of the picture. You can't get 2% of someone's income if they are an inanimate object. You would think they would be fighting against drones as a matter of safety, but there isn't a single pilot union that gives a damn about safety... Once pilots are replaced by ground operators, the unions are going away...

[Tourist]

Jumpindan

Can you post a link to this crash?

[electrotor]

CRayner
Fatalities from model aircraft
Regrettably there have been numerous injuries and some deaths from operation of model aircraft. Admittedly I know of none from a collision between a model and a commercial passenger operation, but there certainly was a death of a hang glider pilot in southern England 20 or 30 years ago. We should not be complacent about this.

FYI almost all injuries are self inflicted by the model pilots. Ask me how I know.
The fatality you are referring to came about on a slope shared by hang gliders and model aircraft. By mutual agreement different ends of the slope were used and there was no conflict. Regrettably the hang glider pilot did not abide by this agreement and encroached on the model flying area. A model on approach to the landing spot collided with the hang glider, the metal wing joiner in the model severing a flying wire on the hang glider. The wing collapsed and the hang glider pilot fell to his death. The subsequent enquiry cleared the model aircraft pilot of any blame.

[Tourist]

That will be a no then jumpindan?

Did you in fact invent the story?

[DaveReidUK]

Did you in fact invent the story?An errant drone enters RVSM airspace and, presumably having then downed an aircraft, causes the deaths of 4 crew members - but the event fails to get a single mention in the mainstream or aviation press. Hmmm.

[henry_crun]

http://www.spxdaily.com/images-lg/uav-drone-cicadas-covert-autonomous-disposable-aircraft-lg.jpg


Paper Drone

Imagine flying through a swarm of these - dropped from high altitude in thousands.

'Cicadas': US military's new swarm of mini-drones (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Cicadas_US_militarys_new_swarm_of_mini-drones_999.html)

[Hexhome]

As one of the new breed of 'drone' operators, I have a vested interest in this thread. I would like to deal with some of the issues raised and respond with opinions based on operating in the UK.
Conflict with any other air user and especially commercial aircraft should never happen. Of course it does, and as sub 7kg drones are currently permitted to operate in controlled airspace without clearance, will continue to happen. Recent CAA rules, now allow sub 3.5 kg drones to operate at up to 1000 ft AGL flying FPV. In other words, the pilot is sitting on the ground with goggles on, flying with just the view ahead.
The threat then, is from untrained leisure flyers with little knowledge of the hazards and rules. Recent CAA action has been to ask anyone reporting an airprox to notify Police asap. Prosecutions are taking place and awareness of 'rogue' operators to the possibility of prosecution is growing.
Commercial operators such as ourselves must undergo training and flight assessment which whilst not as rigorous as a PPL, is similar in content. We must also produce an Operations Manual, which of course must be adhered to at all times.
We do operate occasionally in controlled airspace, but always with permission and contact with the relevant ATC. In any case, we are normally restricted to below 400ft AGL. Should any of the control systems fail, the drone must have a return to home capability. If the worse should happen, a fly away, we always have the contact details of the appropriate ATC.
Most of the work we carry out could not be undertaken by full sized aircraft. Some of it could, but a drone is often safer in these circumstances.
A previous post alluded to the fact that most injuries and fatalities associated with model flying are suffered by the participants. This is true though there has been at least one fatality to a third party. Traditionally, model flying has taken place at club sites. This has kept the public and other air users safe from the activity. There is a growing trend of 'park flyers', who are generally free of rules, instruction and insurance. This cannot be a good thing for anyone.
The future of drones depends on the development of a creditable sense and avoid system. This is not far away. Then it really will be a fight for space!

[Hadley Rille]

At 1000ft AGL with only a remote camera view ahead and busy framing your shot how do maintain an effective scan for other aircraft? You only appear to see untrained leisure flyers as a threat to aviation.

[Hexhome]

That was my point. You cannot. The CAA exception requires an observer but a 3.5kg drone at 1000ft!
Yes, I do think that nearly all these issues are caused by hobbyists. Professional operators work to strict rules and to an operation manual.

[Ahernar]

Well , the manufacturers of consumer "drones" seem to be heading to the right direction .
Parrot Bebop Drone. Lightweight yet robust quadricopter - 14 megapixel Full HD 1080p Fisheye Camera - Skycontroller - 3-axes image stabilization (http://www.parrot.com/products/bebop-drone/)
450 grams is a lot safer than the 1.2 kg's of the phantom and the video results are same if not better .

Another thing to keep in mind - aircrafts are making themselves heard from kilometers via sound. Everybody sane flying FPV drops to the deck if he hears an aircraft - any type of aircraft . That's why the spotters are pretty much redundant .

[Hexhome]

'Spotters are pretty much redundant'.

No, they are essential. It is extremely beneficial to have two people doing pre flight checks, fast jets are not always located by sound, there may be more than one aircraft, plenty of other air users make little sound, the drone pilot may be concentrating on a monitor, people may encroach on the landing area, and the sound of the drone itself may mask other sounds.

If flying in a controlled environment such as a model airfield, it may be acceptable to fly solo, but in my opinion flying solo in any area accessed by the public is not safe.

[Ahernar]

First , i'm talking about the "standard nut's " drone , everybody is scared about . The others are regulated , registrated , a police officer is looking over the shoulder of the operator every flight - no problem .

" It is extremely beneficial to have two people doing pre flight checks"

Meh - 2 man preflight on a Phantom ? Or parrot ? Or a hubsan X4 ?

" fast jets are not always located by sound"
Fast jets are looking for trouble at 1000 feet , before getting hit by a drone they will hit 20 crows , 100 sparrows , 30 pidgeons and a stork .

" there may be more than one aircraft"
One is enought to get me to put down the thing till he is gone .

" plenty of other air users make little sound"
Ninja paraglider on a empty country field would surprise the hell out of me too . Ok , spotters are good (mandatory ) near such agrement fields .

" the drone pilot may be concentrating on a monitor"
That does not make me deaf

" people may encroach on the landing area, and the sound of the drone itself may mask other sounds."
Agree , near noisy places spotters are good .But the drone itself at 50 meters is barely audible , at 100m is already silent .

If flying in a controlled environment such as a model airfield, it may be acceptable to fly solo, but in my opinion flying solo in any area accessed by the public is not safe.

Agree - flying over people with anything over 500g is potentially dangerous .That include full scale things too . But at least the drones can avoid this situation -so i agree - no flying near people

[Hadley Rille]

Hexhome - my apologies, I misread your post.

[oicur12.again]

As an airline pilot and drone hobbyist I would like to share my thoughts.

1. A lot of drone flyers are irresponsible and go looking for trouble.

2. Drones pose much less threat to air safety than the public thinks; the vast majority are smaller and lighter than many RC planes that have been around for decades. I have seen RC twin jets weighing over 200 lbs travelling over 250 mph topping out of a loop at 1500' NEXT to a busy airport and NOBODY thought that was a safety risk. Then out came my little DJI phantom and everyone panicked!!!!

3. The story about the airliner in the US last week pulling up to avoid a drone is probably bogus.

4. The fear authorities have about drones is not safety so much as security. And it’s not a fear of drones being used to drop bombs or smash into Government offices; it’s a fear that they will be used to spy on law enforcement and the Government when they are doing illegal or immoral acts. The last thing the Government wants during marshal law, civilian crackdown, rioting or general civil unrest is the wider community seeing hi def first hand aerial shots of police beatings as happened in Turkey recently.

5. Drones are here to stay and the applications for which they can be used are endless.

[Mark in CA]

It's a start, anyway.

Verizon, the US’s largest wireless telecom company, is developing technology with Nasa to direct and monitor America’s growing fleet of civilian and commercial drones from its network of phone towers.

According to documents obtained by the Guardian, Verizon signed an agreement last year with Nasa “to jointly explore whether cell towers … could support communications and surveillance of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) at low altitudes”.
Nasa and Verizon plan to monitor US drone network from phone towers | Technology | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/03/verizon-nasa-drones-cellphone-towers)

[Mark in CA]

Non-event at Dallas Love Field, but still...

Drone flies within "a few hundred feet" of descending Southwest flight (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/drone-flies-within-a-few-hundred-feet-of-descending-southwest-flight/)

[fellman]

European Aviation Safety Agency have published "Concept of Operations for Drones - a risk based approach to regulation of unmanned aircraft"


Concept of Operations for Drones | EASA (http://easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/general-publications/concept-operations-drones)

[angels]

Here's the story behind the fake drone clip.

No a drone didn't strike a plane leaving New York, it's a hoax (http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2015/06/23/not-so-fly/)

[Deep and fast]

The most dangerous Drone is that coming from your colleagues! :E

[ams6110]

Lake fire grew after private drone flights disrupted air drops - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-wildfires-southern-california-20150625-story.html#page=1)

[bubbers44]

Lake fire grew after private drone flights disrupted air drops - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-wildfires-southern-california-20150625-story.html#page=1)


Would a flock of geese stop all operations too? Who makes decisions like this when lives and property are at stake?

[Herod]

The difference being that the geese would presumably get out of the way, from a sense of self-preservation.

[z06z33]

As both a pilot and a model aircraft pilot, I can honestly say the people who interfere with full scale operations are idiots. I fly my RC planes at the local airport (with permission) but I carry my handheld radio with me so if somone is comming in I'll land immediately. So real planes and models can coexist in the same environment. The proposed rules the FAA has in mind are pretty limiting,ie the speed and altitude limitations. I have an RC jet that will fly well above the 100mph speed limit and in a loop will bust the 500 foot ceiling they want to put on us. I think training is the answer have an required but easy to get small UAS pilot permit based off a cheap online course. That way these idiots will have to know some basic airspace rules.

[bubbers44]

I guess Captain Sully thought that too.

[Ahernar]

Actually a flock of birds is orders of magnitude more dangerous for an aircraft than a drone .It's orders of magnitude bigger so it's harder to avoid /easier to hit and can do what no drone can - shut down multiple engines .

As for hysteria - look here :
Unusual Aviation Pictures (http://www.aviationpics.de/military/1999/awacs/awacs.html)

But there was no evidence for a birdstrike - the pilots were extra jumpy about birds because there was a fatal birdstrike accident on the same type just a couple of months before .

[Mark in CA]

More on the drone incidents (2) over SoCal forest fire.

Drone flying over forest fire diverts planes, costs US Forest Service $10K (http://goo.gl/zQ4tdd)

[bubbers44]

I recently got a phantom 3 drone from DJI and they are very clear on the 400 ft altitude restriction and with the on board GPS will not fly into any restricted areas for drone operation. It will not even take off if it is in unauthorized airspace.

Almost all drone operators are responsible flyers and respect the privacy of their neighbors. No recreational drone to my knowledge has ever hit an aircraft in flight. Model RC aircraft much larger have been flying for decades with no problem. There should not be any concern for these much more sophisticated drones with GPS flying with existing restrictions.

[DaveReidUK]

I recently got a phantom 3 drone from DJI and they are very clear on the 400 ft altitude restriction and with the on board GPS will not fly into any restricted areas for drone operation. It will not even take off if it is in unauthorized airspace.

Unless DJI have tightened up their act considerably over the last few months, I think you'd be surprised at how few airports are programmed by them as exclusion zones - as of January this year, fewer than 20% of airports with scheduled flights worldwide.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/550269-drones-threatening-commercial-c-6.html#post8837062

[Mark in CA]

DJI, the world’s largest drone company, has hired lawyer Brendan Schulman as its vice president of policy and legal affairs.

DJI brings on leading drone lawyer Brendan Schulman - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2015/07/15/dji-brings-on-leading-drone-lawyer-brendan-schulman/?wprss=rss_national)

[bubbers44]

Thanks for the post, Mark. We need a rational approach to drones and not let Dianne and the politicians with absolutely no agenda other than making more unnecessary laws to hinder a growing and necessary field with so many beneficial possibilities.

These drones operate on batteries with a 25 minute endurance so are quiet. They weigh less than 3 lbs with 4 plastic rotors so are much smaller than a lot of RC models with gas engines. With GPS they are easy to fly and will stop and hold altitude whenever the controls are released so the out of control crashes of RC's sometimes have should not happen. If you lose sight of it you simply press a button and it returns and lands itself within 3 ft of where you took off.

[skyship007]

Some folks posting here have not had to fly around any modern larger drones in the US. They are capable of FL 180 plus and need good arms to be lifted off the ground.
Although some have effective strobes and transponders, their owners often do not have insurance and the pilots don't even seem to know about CAS.

I'm in the ban them all camp, unless the Police or Fire dept folks need them. The toy ones should be fully certified and incapable of flying above 100ft etc.
Camera crews should use a certified tethered balloon or a real chopper.

I'm confident nothing will happen until one brings a big aircraft down in a permanent manner!

[skyship007]

Some of you need to check Google, as there have been several collisions with both drones and RC aircraft.
Even a Goodyear blimp got hit and forced down some years ago by a suicidal US citizen.
The new GPS locks and altitude inhibit programs can be deleted by any half wit!

[londonman]

I'm with you on that. If I could un-invent them then I would.

[SAMPUBLIUS]

I note here that in the Seattle WA area, we have an event called SEAFAIR. Basically hydroplane races- and years ago BA flew its prototype 707 over Lake washington and did a slow roll during that event.

Anyhow , for years, part of the celebration involves the Blue Angels who practice on Thurs and Friday for their show on Sat and Sunday. ( july 31 thru aug 2nd is the SEAFAIR and Aug 1st and 2nd is the Airshow.

For practice sessions, they close the interstate hiway over the lake to prevent accidents, and during the actual show. During practice, they pass over my house at something less than 1000 feet- in formation :)

Local TV is already trying to make public that NO drones/planes/etc in a 5 to 10 mile radius of the lake are allowed to fly for about an hour PERIOD . Reason should be obvious. The airspace is closed- down to lake level ( about 20 feet above sea level ).
The Angels make passes at around 100 feet above the lake at 400 plus, and do some formation flying at something around 400-500 feet.

UPDATE- Low pass over beach sends umbrellas and stuff flying

http://www.grindtv.com/random/blue-angels-low-pass-sends-beachgoers-chasing-after-chairs-umbrellas/#LwfooVETCYgX4dIE.97

If one looks close- in the top left side about midway thru, can catch a glimpse of the Angels low pass - ' sneak pass ? '

Even a small drone impacting at that speed can be deadly. And keep in mind that with the close formations used, the pilots fly on the leader for position. The chances of the leader spotting a small drone at 200 300 feet during various passes is slim to none.

They have already announced they will have bucu spotters and survellience posts around the lake and a ways out.

Lets all hope that the local idiots do nothing stupid. And that should also apply to whereever the Angels fly.

[Flash2001]

Authorities have said that drones have delayed the aerial response to the fires on a freeway in California. I wonder if any of these are operated by news gathering agencies.

After an excellent landing etc...

[Airbubba]

Authorities have said that drones have delayed the aerial response to the fires on a freeway in California. I wonder if any of these are operated by news gathering agencies.

Here's more on the latest drone threat to aerial firefighting:

Above spectacular wildfire on freeway rises new scourge: drones

By Michael Martinez, Paul Vercammen and Ben Brumfield, CNN
Updated 6:10 PM ET, Sat July 18, 2015

Phelan, California (CNN)—Of all the elements they must battle in a wildfire, firefighters face a new foe: drones operated by enthusiasts who presumably take close-up video of the disaster.

Five such "unmanned aircraft systems" prevented California firefighters from dispatching helicopters with water buckets for up to 20 minutes over a wildfire that roared Friday onto a Los Angeles area freeway that leads to Las Vegas.

Helicopters couldn't drop water because five drones hovered over the blaze, creating hazards in smoky winds for a deadly midair disaster, officials said.

The North Fire torched 20 vehicles on Interstate 15 and incited panic among motorists who fled on foot on the freeway Friday. The wildfire continued to burn uncontrollably Saturday, scorching 3,500 acres with only 5% containment in San Bernardino County, officials said.

Drones hovering over wildfires is a new trend in California, and on Saturday, fire officials condemned the operators of "hobby drones," as officials labeled them. It was unclear Saturday whether authorities would launch an investigation into the five drones.

"Fortunately, there were no injuries or fatalities to report, but the 15 to 20 minutes that those helicopters were grounded meant that 15 to 20 minutes were lost that could have led to another water drop cycle, and that would have created a much safer environment and we would not have seen as many citizens running for their lives," said spokesman Eric Sherwin of the San Bernardino County Fire Department.

The drones got away, and firefighters resumed their water drops by chopper.

"We can't confirm who was running drones, and we did not collect any of the drones because our focus was on fighting the fire," Sherwin added.

Firefighters disdain drones buzzing over their work sites. At a national level, how to regulate drones and their flight paths are an ongoing controversy, especially as private industry pushes the Federal Aviation Administration for more freedom to use drones in commerce.

"Please stop flying hobby drones in the area," U.S. Forest Service spokeswoman Gerrelaine Alcordo said about the wildfire site. "We can't risk the choppers colliding with them. We could have loss of life."

The FAA has placed temporary flight restrictions around the wildfires, which means the unmanned aircraft should not fly there without agency approval, spokesman Ian Gregor told CNN by email.

He said the FAA promotes voluntary compliance. However, the agency could impose civil fines ranging from $1,000 to $25,000 if someone operates a drone in a dangerous manner or continues to operate one illegally after being contacted by the FAA, he said.

Drones visit California wildfire, angering firefighters - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/us/california-freeway-fire/index.html)

Some U.S. Forest Service guidance with a poster (Smokey the Bear ad campaign coming soon I would guess):

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest - Alerts & Notices (http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/okawen/alerts-notices/?cid=stelprd3839819)

[Hartington]

RIAT Fairford has signs banning them - wording is very comprehensive. Won't stop people outside the perimeter.

[Peter H]

US probe into handgun-toting drone video - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33613784)

[msjh]

The better drones have microcode which knows about airports and won't let them fly nearby.

[DaveReidUK]

The better drones have microcode which knows about airports and won't let them fly nearby.

Already discussed earlier in the thread:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/550269-drones-threatening-commercial-c-5.html#post8834171

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/550269-drones-threatening-commercial-c-8.html#post9028368

And I'd be very surprised if Fairford was one of the pre-programmed exclusion zones, given that there are only a few hundred of them, worldwide.

[golfbananajam]

From the BBC web site this morning

Drone pilots warned after close call with passenger jet - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33612631)

A "near miss" between a passenger jet and a drone has prompted warnings about safe use of the hobby aircraft. An Airbus A320's wing passed 6m (20ft) below a drone hovering at Heathrow, said the Civil Aviation Authority. It said drone pilots would face prosecution if they put the safety of other aircraft at risk. News about the mid-air encounter comes only days after a Lufthansa jet nearly collided with a drone on the approach to Warsaw's international airport.

Prison terms

The CAA said it had recorded six other incidents between May 2014 and March 2015 at airports around the UK in which drones and piloted craft almost collided. "Drone users must understand that when taking to the skies they are entering one of the busiest areas of airspace in the world," said Tim Johnson, director of policy at the CAA, in a statement. Drone owners must be aware of the rules and regulations surrounding the flying of their craft, he said. Recklessly endangering an aircraft is a criminal offence, said Mr Johnson, and those convicted could face a five-year jail sentence. The authority has issued a set of safety guidelines which, it said, should help ensure drone flights do not impinge on other aircraft. The "dronecode" says recreational drone owners should always keep their craft within their line of sight, about 500m (1,640ft), and must not fly higher than 122m. In some of the near-collisions, drones were flying at heights of about 2,000ft, it said. The code also says that drones carrying cameras must stay at least 50m away from people, vehicles and structures and must not approach a large group of people closer than 150m. It urged owners to exercise common sense when flying their craft and to avoid the congested airspace around airports. "Drone operators need to put safety at the forefront of their minds when flying though, and ensure there is no conflict with commercial manned traffic," said Stephen Landells from the British Airline Pilots Association.

[DaveReidUK]

News about the mid-air encounter comes only days after a Lufthansa jet nearly collided with a drone on the approach to Warsaw's international airport.The BA incident occurred exactly a year ago today, the BBC should try to keep up. :O

http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/2014117.pdf

[Mark in CA]

In the news today.

Drone seized in Poland after near-collision with plane (http://news.yahoo.com/experts-check-drone-warsaw-planes-near-collision-105327933.html)

[golfbananajam]

This came across my desk today courtesy of Mobile Europe (hope the picture is a fake)

Sony Mobile takes to the skies in drone initiative with ZMP (http://www.mobileeurope.co.uk/press-wire/sony-mobile-takes-to-the-skies-in-drone-initiative-with-zmp)

Extract of the article is:

Sony Mobile has jointly founded its own drone company, which will offer enterprise solutions using unmanned aircraft.

The smartphone company has formed Aerosense with Japanese robotics company ZMP, with the business set to be incorporated next month.

Sony said Aerosense would use image capture and cloud-based data processing to deliver the likes of measurement, surveying and inspection services.

Sony will provide its camera, sensing, telecoms and robotics technology for the new company.

Google and Facebook are among the other companies testing drones, with both looking to use them to bring wireless connectivity to areas that do not have it.

In March, Google's product chief Sundar Pichai said its drone program could be extended to Europe, with remote connectivity bolstered by its Project Loon initiative, which uses hot air balloons.

Operators have been using drones for network maintenance, with du in the Middle East recently teaming up with Nokia Networks to examine the health of its infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Cosmote in Greece has also used drones for network inspection, with it teaming up with Ericsson for the project.

[Mark in CA]

“We think the airspace side of this picture is really not a place where any one entity or any one organization can think of taking charge,” Dave Vos, who heads Google’s secretive Project Wing, told Bloomberg News in his most expansive comments on Google’s vision to date. “The idea being that it’s not ‘Google is going to go out and build a solution and everyone else has to subscribe to it.’ The idea really is anyone should be free to build a solution.”

At least 14 companies, including Google, Amazon, Verizon and Harris, have signed agreements with NASA to help devise the first air-traffic system to coordinate small, low-altitude drones, which the agency calls the Unmanned Aerial System Traffic Management. More than 100 other companies and universities have also expressed interest in the project, which will be needed before commercial drones can fly long distances to deliver goods, inspect power lines and survey crops.
...
The goal is to eventually create a fully automated robotic ballet in the sky, with computers instructing drones to move around obstructions and each other.

Google Wants a Piece of Air-Traffic Control for Drones - Bloomberg Business (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-24/google-has-way-to-unclog-drone-filled-skies-like-it-did-the-web)

[Mark in CA]

2-m wedge-tailed eagle takes down drone. Watch it pPunch it out of the sky - Australia eagle is fine):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr-xBtVU4lg

[spinnvill]

So, its happened here... Albeit a happy outcome it does hint at things to come - this happened at 2000 feet with an unknown, so far unidentified drone.

The article is in norwegian, but the gist of it is that the collision happened in the southern parts of Norway this week to a foreign single-engine airplane receiving the hit with the landing gear.

Fortunately no real damage done, but there is a lot of focus being drawn towards the problem of course - and I would guess that there is a pretty active investigation running!

Luftfartstilsynet frykter alvorlige ulykker - Luftfart - VG (http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/luftfart/luftfartstilsynet-frykter-alvorlige-ulykker/a/23515984/)

So far 18 reports on accidents have been registered this year here, and around 20.000 drones are probably sold.

Today I will be sending my own operation manual for review, its taken half a year - and there are still some aspects of operating the drone I am using that I will have to make sure will not be a problem. But climbing to 2000 feet? No way, never!

[Tourist]

Plane hits drone.

Plane fine.

Can we all chill now a little?

[jack11111]

"Can we all chill now a little?"


Let's chill until we have a black smoking hole.

[Weeds round the prop]

Having been intensely irritated by a drone hovering over an outdoor performance of Shakespeare's Macbeth last summer, I'm with the chimp:
Chimp That Took Down Drone Showed 'Forward Planning': Researchers - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-science/chimp-took-down-drone-showed-forward-planning-n421167)

[Tourist]

Ok, lets think about this rationally.

I think most of us would agree that the greatest threat from small drones is to small single engine puddle-jumpers? Airliners have multiple engines, and as with birds, it usually needs a flock to bring one down.

Examples.

Man 1 has a bit of spare cash.
Man 1 buys Cessna 152.
Man 1 has great fun flying around.
Man 1 obeys all the rules and flies responsibly, yet unavoidably, the very act of him flying around imposes a small extra risk on those whom he flies above, and history shows that every now and then puddle-jumpers take down an airliner.....

Man 2 has a bit of spare cash.
Man 2 buys quadcopter.
Man 2 has great fun flying it around.
Man 2 obeys all the rules and flies responsibly, yet unavoidably, the very act of him flying around imposes a small extra risk on those who fly around him. He is vanishingly unlikely to take down an airliner, but he might take down a puddle-jumper.


Which should be banned? One, both or none?

[Bing]

Man 3 has a bit of spare cash.
Man 3 buys quadcopter.
Man 3 has great fun flying it around.
Man 3 doesn't know, or care, there are any rules he has to follow and happily flies it on the approach path to a range of airports he may or may not know exist.

There are many more of Man 3 than the other two types put together.

[Tourist]

I fully accept that Man 3 is probably prevalent, but that does not detract from my point.


If we should ban drones because they are a threat to aircraft, then should we also ban little puddle-jumpers?

If not, why not?

In both cases, the majority are flown purely for entertainment, and both potentially pose a risk to other, larger, aircraft.

So far, there is no evidence that drones have caused more deaths than puddle-jumpers, in fact the only collision between a toy drone and a manned aircraft I have heard of so far caused no damage whatsoever.

Manned toys can't say the same.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_182

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Cerritos_mid-air_collision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedmont_Airlines_Flight_22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_Airlines_Flight_853

[OldLurker]

Google translation of the Norwegian story at #332 (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nb&tl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Finnenriks%2Fluftfart%2F luftfartstilsynet-frykter-alvorlige-ulykker%2Fa%2F23515984%2F)
(usual caveat – machine translation)

[4Greens]

It was reported in sport news that a small drone had crashed at the US Open tennis. Fotunately noone hurt.

Here we go.

[ZOOKER]

Tourist, the greatest threat from small drones is the irritating noise nuisance to people on the surface who just want a quite life.
The concept of ATC for Google and Amazon drones is laughable. There is no requirement whatsoever for either of these organisations to operate drones.
As Jack11111 points out, a "black smoking hole" is the last thing anyone wants to see.

[Mechta]

There is no requirement whatsoever for either of these organisations to operate drones.If you are going to apply that sort of argument, then you can ground almost all privately owned aircraft, a large proportion of general aviation and all holiday flights. Unless a flight is for defence or lifesaving purposes, there is always a slower surface transport alternative.

[jack11111]

Ok, just a few operational questions.

What is the MTOW of a drone delivering a 1kg package? A 2kg package? A 5kg package?
Can a drone deliver only to a secure site with the recipient present? Or will the drone hide your package as the UPS driver does?
How will the drone deal with a curious neighbor? A curious neighbor child? A pet dog?
When the drone is ready to depart, does it yell, "Clear!"? Will non-aviation types even understand what "Clear" means?
If the drone malfunctions, will it radio for help?
Are drones VFR Only or are they all-weather?

Just some operational questions.

[megan]

From AvwebThe FAA has reported that an “unknown object” struck a Piper Apache while in flight near Romeoville, Illinois, but according to the drone website suasnews.com, that object was likely a small drone. Citing an “unconfirmed report,” suasnews states that a Piper PA-23 twin impacted the drone at about 2,500 feet near Lewis University Airport (KLOT) in Illinois on Aug. 27. Photos of damage on the aircraft appear to show a series of vertical indentations and a slice into the rubber de-ice boot along the leading edge of the tail surface. The airplane landed safely and nobody was hurt.
http://cdn.avweb.com/media/newspics/170/p19u7c0jaslag1ne1r6j1u0p1l8r6.jpgIf we should ban drones because they are a threat to aircraft, then should we also ban little puddle-jumpers?The drivers of little puddle jumpers are supposed to have a handle on how to operate in the airspace. Little Johnny with his drone, not so much, as we see with the pratts and the green light shiny things. If I were the owner of the aircraft above I'd be one ticked off individual.

[megan]

Article

Drone slams into seating area at U.S. Open - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/04/us/us-open-tennis-drone-arrest/index.html)

[peekay4]

I think most of us would agree that the greatest threat from small drones is to small single engine puddle-jumpers?
The greatest threat from small drones would be to helicopter operations. News helicopters, Air Ambulance, police & fire helicopters, private and passenger ops, etc.

Helicopters fly at low altitudes away from airports or established air routes. A drone hit to the main or anti-torque rotors could end in disaster.

[Tourist]

Peekay

Yes, I was talking fixed wing on this thread, but I agree.

Not convinced that a main rotor would die from a small toy drone. Tail, maybe.

No matter how many drones get bought by idiots, birds will always be a greater threat.

If we are so worried by drones, then why are we not equally worried by birds?

Toy drones are generally getting lighter as the tech advances.

Delivery drones are different, but they are also going to be regulated and operating with somebody responsible who knows he goes to jail if he causes a problem.

Megan

Much like a bird strike, really.

Puddle jumper pilots are supposed to have a handle, but despite this keep killing airliners. The fact that they have a license is irrelevant to the dead people.

Where is the worry and outrage about those smoking holes?

[peekay4]

If we are so worried by drones, then why are we not equally worried by birds?
Who's not worried about bird strikes? Bird strikes have caused many helicopter crashes and unfortunately numerous deaths.

Similarly even a small drone could be a hazard to light helicopters like the Robinson R22.

The biggest threat with drones is the human operator:

- Drunk people who think "it's funny" to harass helicopters with their drones, and might even try to purposely hit one

- People who for some reason think they "must" fly their drones over an active accident site while an Air Ambulance is trying to land or take-off

- Kids who think it's cool to fly drones right over airports and even along the active runway

- Folks who want to "compete" with police & news helicopters over a crime scene, so they can post a footage to their friends on Facebook that night

Through August 20th the FAA has logged over 750 drone "events" this year alone.

[ZOOKER]

Mechta,
Google and Amazon seem to be getting on splendidly without SUAV's. ATC are often stretched (by staff numbers, driven by cost), to provide ATSOCAS to manned aircraft.

[Tourist]

Peekay

Do you honestly think that the number of drones will ever be more than negligible compared to the birds that we fly amongst every day?

Seagulls love to fly around the disk of a hovering helicopter. At least the pilot of the drone knows it will die and he will be out of pocket if he gets too close. Birds, not so much...

Birds are constantly doing the things which you are worried about.
They fly over airports.
They come to look at helicopters.

Airliners are specifically designed to take bird strikes.
Baby quadcopters seem very similar to me.

Zooker

Do you honestly believe that normal human ATC will have any role when it comes to Amazon etc delivering parcels?
Why would a quad ever fly above 200ft?

Why should Amazon give a sh1t if ATC are stretched? ATCs job is to provide a service to everyone who needs it, not decide who has a valid reason.
Amazon has a far more valid reason, (ie business) than some PPL playing for personal entertainment.

[ZOOKER]

SUAVs will not be a lot of use for delivering parcels if they can't fly over congested areas.
There is someone who posts pictures on the internet taken with a DJI quadcopter. It has been flown within 20' of the top of Blackpool Tower, which is 518' agl. There are other photographs from the same individual taken at about 2,500' above the town centre.
These are the sort of idiots we're dealing with.

[Tourist]

Two separate things.

Idiots with toy UAVs

These have been around as radio controlled aircraft for ever. Yes there are now more of them, but most of them are over cities where aircraft should not be at low level. Very very few idiots will have them at height. those that do, I refer you back to where I pointed out they are just like birds. Lots of them around but we seem to get by.



Amazon drones flying automated routes in automated drones.

This is new. There is no benefit in making these things fly high, plus the CEO of Amazon will be acutely aware of the potential lawsuit scale if they screw up. I suspect they will be absolutely bulletproof before they ever take to the skies operationally.

[megan]

Lots of them around but we seem to get byAs pointed out previously, not without quite a number of accidents and deaths. The dead would not agree "we are getting by". Last bird strike event I saw was a King Air being wrestled to the ground with major damage to a wing leading edge just inboard from the tip. And I mean wrestled, because of induced aerodynamic effects.

[Tourist]

Yup, birds cause damage.
Been there, done that.


Toys will cause damage.
Not had that yet.

How many aircraft have been brought down by a single bird in the last decade worldwide?

How many birds are there?

Just because something will inevitably cause accidents is not an excuse to ban it.

If we went down that route all PPL pilots would be grounded.
All motorbikes.
All radio controlled aircraft.
Boomerangs.
Frisbees.
Cricket balls.
the list is endless

The only thing to do is assess the realistic risk.

The simple fact is that despite vast numbers of these things having been bought in the last couple of years and lot of general worrying, the worst anyone can come up with is one collision with a Cessna, no damage and a dent in a de-icing boot.

[ZOOKER]

"Amazon drones flying automated routes in automated routes"

What happens when a 'powerplant' fails?

Below 200', super. More noise pollution.

Also if these things are that low, 'scallys' will be shooting them down and making off with the booty contained therein.

It's madness.

[Tourist]

ZOOKER

They have 4 power plants, minimum. That means redundancy.

If you live somewhere that "scallys" shoot things down, then drones are the least of your problem.

[ZOOKER]

Thankfully not, Tourist, but I don't see the point of creating new problems when there's enough cr@p out there already.

[9 lives]

Possible solution;

Hr-xBtVU4lg

[ZOOKER]

Unfortunately, I missed the very valid points raised in Jack's last post, and Step Turn, that is priceless.

[aerobelly]

Ok, just a few operational questions.

What is the MTOW of a drone delivering a 1kg package? A 2kg package? A 5kg package?
Can a drone deliver only to a secure site with the recipient present? Or will the drone hide your package as the UPS driver does?
How will the drone deal with a curious neighbor? A curious neighbor child? A pet dog?
When the drone is ready to depart, does it yell, "Clear!"? Will non-aviation types even understand what "Clear" means?
If the drone malfunctions, will it radio for help?
Are drones VFR Only or are they all-weather?
Jack,

MTOW: I have a half-share in one that can lift 1 kg easily, its weight with batteries is 2.5 kg. But flying time at 3.5 kg is on the order of 9 minutes. With 0.5 kg payload another battery pack could be added for 18 minutes total duration. Its cruising speed would be 10 m/s which gives an effective range of 3 km. This is 2015 technology. To deliver 5kg to a destination say 3 km away would probably result in a TOW somewhere in the 25 kg region. Which the CAA consider to be a "heavy".

Problems at destination: Equipped with a video link an operator could monitor the delivery, and do the equivalent of UPS's "no-one in" driveby.

Takeoff: The transmitter for ours says "All clear above and behind?" when the throttle reaches 10%. Takeoff is at about 65-70%. At the delivery end a small speaker could do the same, in fact cover a range of situations. We don't have the facilities to test with dogs; cats are interested but don't come near, too noisy. (This is while motor testing tied to a 50kg garden table with 4 cats hanging around.)

UAV problems: There is a range of telemetry that can be sent back. Some the the larger systems use an Arduino computer for on-board control, and that can be programmed for all sorts of situations. If a motor fails the controllers for 6 & 8 motor UAVS can cope to some extent, generally by landing where they are. Controllers with 3 or 4 motors cannot cope.

IFR?: No reason they can't be made waterproof. Just adds a little more weight for covers and seals. Probably a good idea to make sure the payload can stand being in the vigorous shower from the props though.


However using them for real delivery is just a PT Barnum show. I'm sure it will be done, but expect a brown/yellow/white van at your own door.


'b

[ZOOKER]

How does it release it's payload? If you've ordered a book, (usually, fairly heavy too), does it leave it out in the rain?

[Tourist]

Already waterproof.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vGcH0Bk3hg

In answer to some of the other questions, I understand they don't intend to ever land them.

I believe the package will be lowered?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2itwFJCgFQ

If you watch the TED talk video I posted above you will see a quadcopter having two of its props cut off with scissors and still flyable in a emergency mode with all axis control possible.

Whether it all happens, who knows, but I do know that for it to be worth doing they have to be autonomous to make it worth the effort. If each one has a pilot then there is no saving.

[ZOOKER]

The cocknockers featured in the video tell you everything you need to know.
NEXT! :E

[Tourist]

Which video, and what do you mean?

[ZOOKER]

Er,
The last 2 videos you posted.

[Tourist]

Thats a fair spread of "cocknockers";)

From science geeks to engineers to snowboarders to kayakers to octogenarian hillwalkers...


I think you should invest in a few more derogatory epithets for your vocabulary to ensure people know exactly what type of cocknockers you are referring to at any particular juncture.

[ZOOKER]

Nah,
I think the problem is, and increasingly will be....Twerps who launch their little camera-carrying toy-helicopters, 'because I've paid for it, the technology exists, and I can', and stuff the safety of everyone else, both in the air, and on the ground.
To get signed-off as a PPL, (A,H, gliders/balloons), takes a lot of financial input, practical experience, theoretical study and common-sense.
I note from another discussion that you mention MER. What is the MER for 'drone-pilots', and where is it detailed?

[Mechta]

Ok, just a few operational questions.

What is the MTOW of a drone delivering a 1kg package? A 2kg package? A 5kg package?
Can a drone deliver only to a secure site with the recipient present? Or will the drone hide your package as the UPS driver does?
How will the drone deal with a curious neighbor? A curious neighbor child? A pet dog?
When the drone is ready to depart, does it yell, "Clear!"? Will non-aviation types even understand what "Clear" means?
If the drone malfunctions, will it radio for help?
Are drones VFR Only or are they all-weather?

Just some operational questions. All good questions, and if I were Amazon or any of the other 'players', I would be keeping the answers very quiet until I had the whole lot wrapped up in patents etc. Don't assume the videos they have put out so far are anything like what they really plan to do. They may simply be to throw the competition off the scent.

Mechta,
Google and Amazon seem to be getting on splendidly without SUAV's. ATC are often stretched (by staff numbers, driven by cost), to provide ATSOCAS to manned aircraft. Google and Amazon's shareholders won't be impressed if the management are not exploiting an opportunity which could give them a considerable return on investment. If paying for ATSOCAS to expand is what it takes, then maybe they will. In which case, remember 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'.

There will no doubt be some very serious lobbying by the courier companies, citing environmental benefits (less vans clogging up roads, delivery as the crow flies etc.), so anyone using a helicopter for a job another drone could conceivably do, had better start putting an extremely good justification for their continued existence together. 'We were here first' won't carry much weight.

Heavier-than-air powered aviation has yet to pass the point that it exceeds every human lifetime. We need to be looking at the next hundred years, not just the next ten or twenty.

[ZOOKER]

"Google and Amazon's shareholders won't be impressed if the management are not exploiting an opportunity which could give them a considerable return on their investment".
Neither will the folks in Windsor if one of these things accidentally encounters an A319 approaching EGLL and causes it to alight in the high street, as opposed to 09L.

[peekay4]

Birds, PPLs, model aircraft, etc., are all completely irrelevant.

Whatever baseline risk they collectively represent today, drones add new safety concerns above and beyond that baseline.

We're only at the inception of the drone age. There are already over 500,000 drones sold in the US alone and the drone market is expected to grow exponentially in the next decade when shipments of drones are expected to be in the millions (!) of units each and every year.

Casualties due to unregulated drone use is a matter of when, not if.

[ZOOKER]

peekay4 is spot on. If something can go wrong.....one day it will.

I'll give you one example.

If you look at the STAR charts for EGGP, you'll see there is a holding-pattern to the NW called 'TIPOD'. But why is it called 'TIPOD'?
When the inbound procedures were changed, (a long time ago), and that holding-fix was introduced, it was originally called 'LIVPO'. "Hang-on" we said, that's very similar to the name of the airfield's NDB, 'LPL', (which also had a published holding-pattern), 4 miles east of the field. We were concerned that one day, someone would get them confused. "There shouldn't be a problem", said the Ops department, (who had developed the procedures), "but we'll monitor the situation".
They didn't have to monitor it for long.
I was on the morning, about 2 weeks later, that someone, who had been cleared to LIVPO, went to the NDB by mistake. The NDB is about 15nm west of a larger airport, and conflicts with several of that airport's SIDS. In accordance with one of 'Murph'y Laws, this happened during the larger airport's westbound trans-Atlantic departure period, and for 5 minutes or so, it got very exciting.
The name 'TIPOD was introduced the following day.

All the professionals involved in that scenario were fully-trained and licensed, all and had the best intentions in The World, but succumbed to yet another 'Gotcha'.

99.99% of those customers in the 'drone-market' that peekay mentions will not be fully-trained and licensed.

[Tourist]

Peekay

It is not a baseline.
It is merely the current state of affairs.

Why should any new activity have to achieve higher safety than old activities?

Birds we can't really stop, but PPLs we could ban tomorrow.

By banning PPls we would definitely stop major accidents.
That is an incontrovertible fact.
Despite this I hear no calls to do so.

By banning drones we merely have reason to believe that we might stop accidents in future. There is as yet no evidence to prove this.


ZOOKER

You keep coming back to this "PPL pilots are trained" cr@p.

It is entirely irrelevant whether they are trained or not. They keep causing accidents and killing hundreds of people!!
Obviously the training is inadequate.

When a PPL hits an airliner it usually takes it down.
When a toy drone hits a Cessna it barely leaves a dent.

If the head of the CAA was given a £1 Million bonus for every life saved in accidents in the UK and had the power to ban either PPL or UAV, which do you think he would choose?



p.s. Does anybody on here really think that a PPL in any way could be described as "takes a lot of financial input, practical experience, theoretical study and common-sense."

Cash, yes it requires it.
The rest, not so much.

[megan]

When a PPL hits an airliner it usually takes it downIt takes two to tango. How about when an airliner hits a PPL they both go down, or an F-16 in a recent case. See and be seen has its limits.uncaring of standards Muppet you would ever employ.

He is also a ppl.And you'll find CPL, ATPL and military who also qualify. Spokane B-52 being a classic.

[Tourist]

Agreed.

So why is it the toy drones that have yet to kill anybody we are talking about banning?

[ZOOKER]

Tourist,
may I suggest you take time to read the whole thread? All the answers to that question are there.

[Tourist]

No, not any answers that are valid to me.

Fortunately, It matters little.

Drones are here to stay, and those that are trying to stand in their way are like the Luddites, Saboteurs and similar ilk from the past.

Doomed to fail.

Yes there were accidents on the new fangled trains/cars/planes etc, but new tech is here to stay.

[OldLurker]

AVweb now reports that the Illinois incident last week was a bird-strike ("small, non-predatory bird"):
www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Reported-Drone-Collision-Was-a-Birdstrike-224805-1.html (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Reported-Drone-Collision-Was-a-Birdstrike-224805-1.html)

[lilflyboy262...2]

Tourist,

Do you have to wait for somebody to die before you ban something that has obvious potential hazards to large numbers of life?

[lomapaseo]

Do you have to wait for somebody to die before you ban something that has obvious potential hazards to large numbers of life?

Do you mean private small planes carrying two or more people ploughing into an orphanage?

[lilflyboy262...2]

Yes, of course that's what I meant. :hmm::ugh:

[Tourist]

Tourist,

Do you have to wait for somebody to die before you ban something that has obvious potential hazards to large numbers of life?

I'm going to take the liberty of rephrasing your question for clarity.

"Should scientists wait for evidence to back up a scientific theory, or should they proceed on an assumption that flies in the face of years of empirical observation"

[Tourist]

Incidentally, I'll lay my cards on the table.


If a drone takes out an airliner tomorrow, I still don't think they should be banned.

All new (and in fact old) technologies have accidents.

That is part of the path of life.

Planes kill people.
Cars kill people.
Nuclear power stations kill people.
Coal fire power stations kill people.
Knives kill people.
Trains kill people.
Lawnmowers kill people.
Footballs kill people.
Trousers kill people. (go read the ONS report!)
Ladders kill people.
Pets kill people.

Drones will, eventually, kill some people.

So what?

Nothing is all good or all bad. (except Morris Dancing. It has no redeeming features)
Drones have the potential to revolutionise many areas of life and I think society will look back and laugh at the current luddites.

[OldLurker]

Tourist:(except Morris Dancing. It has no redeeming features)I know you were joking, but in this context morris dancing does have a redeeming feature: it very rarely kills people.

[Tourist]

Tourist:I know you were joking, but in this context morris dancing does have a redeeming feature: it very rarely kills people.

More often than toy drones then....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1478668/

Isn't google great......

[Chris2303]

Tourist you forgot one:

Life kills people.

[Herod]

Life kills people.

Aaah, life; the ultimate terminal disease.

[skridlov]

Better watch out if this one ever gets out of ground effect...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5JgnMJzCtQ

[Una Due Tfc]

Aaah, life; the ultimate terminal disease.

I believe being born is the number one cause of dying

[jack11111]

This fellow needs a orange "hi vis" vest so you can see him on short final.

[Ultralights]

i dont think a drone and a commercial aircraft will do much, if anything, as for nuclear power, well, only 15 world wide... others have died from cancers, but at a rate no worse than the gloabl average..

back to drones, they are very light compared to an equivelent sized bird, they are a plastic housing, with a few small circuit boards, 4 small engines about the size of a few coins, and a battery.
in all seriouslness, i doubt they would cause more damage than a bird..

[M609]

http://blog.loclum.com/wp-content/uploads/Octocopter.jpg

Just that camera with lens is about 1600 grams, metal framed body. Sturdy enough to punch trough quite a lot......

Not all drones are created equal......

[Tourist]

And how many untrained idiots do you think have one of those as a toy?

[R04stb33f]

Looking at The Swarm video posted above, I can't help wondering what Paul Moller did with all that cash considering he never got past "tethered flight" stage with his "Skycar"... With this new technology droning on, it should be easy - the skycar is nothing more than a fancy quadcopter.

[Jumpindan]

Sorry for the late reply, I work in an area with extremely limited communications. Here is the link to the ISR drone crash in question. 3 Civilian Bodies Found from Afghan Crash - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-civilian-bodies-found-from-afghan-crash/)
Dan

[aox]

back to drones, they are very light compared to an equivelent sized bird, they are a plastic housing, with a few small circuit boards, 4 small engines about the size of a few coins, and a battery.
in all seriouslness, i doubt they would cause more damage than a bird..

A certain bird that is 9 or 10 cm long and 13 to 17 cm span weighs 9 to 13 g

A forthcoming iPhone weighs 193 g

OK, larger bird needed. 17 to 22 cm long, 30 to 40 cm span, 30 to 75 g weight

[Tourist]

Sorry for the late reply, I work in an area with extremely limited communications. Here is the link to the ISR drone crash in question. 3 Civilian Bodies Found from Afghan Crash - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-civilian-bodies-found-from-afghan-crash/)
Dan

That crash was a ISR Kingair, not a drone. I see no mention of a drone being involved, and I would question what a C-12 would be doing in RVSM airspace over Afghan as you stated earlier.
I'm willing to accept its possible that it happened though but it is hardly relevant. A predator is a full size aircraft in a war zone that just happens to be unmanned. Hardly the same as toy quadcopters.

aox

I'm slightly confused as to what you are saying.
You are aware that there are 10kg birds on this planet?

[aox]

I'm slightly confused as to what you are saying.
You are aware that there are 10kg birds on this planet?

Of course. In fact by coincidence I recently mentioned the albatross in a now deleted post. Perhaps you saw it briefly.

I'm replying to a post asserting that for equivalent size a collection of a few circuit boards and battery etc is very light compared to a bird.

I gave a well-known example of some electronics that is 10 times heavier than about the same size bird and still over double the weight of a larger bird.

We could find other examples, such as quadcopter advertising that says 500 to 2000 gram payload plus its own weight on 4 x 10 inch rotors, but as a first approximation maybe the claim is a bit stretched much of the time.

[Tourist]

Ok, I fair enough.:ok:

[Mr Magnetic]

For all the speculation, the actual impact of a done strike on a commercial aircraft / engine can't be that difficult to test and measure on the ground under safe conditions...

Perhaps the 'ban all drones now' brigade would do better to spend their energies trying to convince the relevant safety boards to conduct some proper research so that the risks can be properly quantified and understood?

[oldjimh]

doubtless it's been said but in light of recent posts, bears repeating

the gears and rare earth magnets in drone motors are hard and will wreak havoc with turbine blade tip clearance..

A friend of mine worked on bird ingestion for P&W decades ago. He basically sharpened the first stage blades so they'd shred the bird and it could pass on through like the mostly water substance that a bird is.
There's no gears in a seagull.


Abuse a freedom and you'll lose it.
If th a-holes leep this up all their drones will be cellphone equipped , continuously broadcasting their owner's name and location .

[Tourist]

If th a-holes leep this up all their drones will be cellphone equipped , continuously broadcasting their owner's name and location .

That sounds like a good idea. In todays world of the Internet of everything that would go a long way to remove any tw@t factor.

[Mark in CA]

Expect to see more drones than ever in the hands of amateurs.

Qualcomm hopes its little board can be used to create the holy grail of drones en masse: Something with the big-time processing power and imaging capabilities of a pricey drone, the smaller and ultimately safer size of a toy-like drone, and better charging speeds and battery life than either of them.



New Qualcomm Tech Could Lead to the Ultimate Drone | WIRED (http://www.wired.com/2015/09/new-qualcomm-tech-lead-ultimate-drone/)

[Mark in CA]

The Federal Aviation Administration restricts airspace around stadium events for three nautical miles, including up to 3,000 feet in the air.

There is no way drone makers will be able to pre-program their products to geo-fence time-dependent events like this.

Student charged with endangerment after drone crashes into football stadium | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/student-charged-with-endangerment-after-drone-crashes-into-football-stadium/)

[Lon More]

If th a-holes leep this up all their drones will be cellphone equipped , continuously broadcasting their owner's name and location .

good idea: then I can program mine to deliver a pre-emptive strike

And how many untrained idiots do you think have one of those as a toy?

There are enough out there. An alternative to the second BMW perhaps? The skies over Cheshire will be full

[ZOOKER]

I met a chap a year or so back who was just starting up as a professional photographer, he was very enthusiastic about using drones. He couldn't believe it when I told him the folks at EGCC might be interested in what he was planning to do.
He's based in Wilmslow. :E

[Hadley Rille]

"The first case in England of a person being prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service for using drones after a police-led operation."

Man fined after flying drones over Premier League stadiums - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-34256680)

[Mark in CA]

The proposed system would track and trace all drones flying below 500 feet (150 metres), irrespective of whether they are being flown by commercial or leisure pilots.

UK government teams up with NASA to build drone tracking system | Ars Technica UK (http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/09/uk-government-teams-up-with-nasa-to-build-drone-tracking-system/)

[Shackman]

And of course these will always be flown iaw CAA regs:

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/567757-uk-police-force-buy-uav-s-competition-name-them.html

[Ian W]

UK government teams up with NASA to build drone tracking system
Quote:
The proposed system would track and trace all drones flying below 500 feet (150 metres), irrespective of whether they are being flown by commercial or leisure pilots.

UK government teams up with NASA to build drone tracking system | Ars Technica UK (http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/09/uk-government-teams-up-with-nasa-to-build-drone-tracking-system/)

It looks like they expect a 'cooperative' system in which 'drones' report their position to the regulator, otherwise they will have a lot of difficulty identifying them and even discriminating small UAS from birds. UAS now in hobbyist hands or self built will not enable cooperative surveillance so will be unaffected But no doubt the government will pay NASA handsomely for their failure.

Edit:

The quote from the House of Lords statement is
My noble friend Lady O’Cathain specifically mentioned NASA and the involvement of the Government with it, as well as industry engagement. The Government are in early discussions with NASA about the drone traffic management system, and it is hoped that those discussions will lead to a UK involvement in the development of that system and the participation of UK industry in future trials to test the robustness of the technology.

The technology that they are discussing is indeed a cooperative system being developed at NASA Ames by Parimal Kopardekar (PK) see:

http://www.atmseminar.org/seminarContent/seminar11/media/pdf/ATM2015_RPAS-UAS_panel_ParimalKopardekar.pdf

[Mark in CA]

This site seems to be a good place to get a feel for the state of the market. They offer a wide variety of commercial drones, and even offer drone insurance (not liability).

Find the drone for you. Expert Drones (http://www.expertdrones.com/welcome-home)

In ohter news, the Finnish post office is playing with drone delivery, like Amazon's.

Finnish post office tests drone for parcel delivery | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/09/14/us-finland-postaldrone-idUKKCN0RE15E20150914)

[2EggOmelette]

Some may say slightly off topic, but some may also say this is why the CAA has implemented the new rules...

Drone flies into Whangarei power lines, causes outage | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/northland/72147997/drone-flies-into-whangarei-power-lines-causes-outage)

[Mark in CA]

OK, it's Friday, and it's time for a little drone humor.

Here's a father who rigged up his drone to pull out his daughter's baby tooth. All seems to go well, but you may be advised to not try this at home.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/video/pulling-loose-tooth-drone-021828154.html

[Albert Square]

Monarch flight ZB 547 from ACE, due at 1616Hrs, was unable to land At MAN due to "drone activity". Had to divert to Liverpool due low fuel. Currently in a "fuel queue" before return to MAN.
Don't know if any other flights affected.
AS

[Albert Square]

547 back at MAN 1808Hrs.
AS

[future_atc]

Parents plane was kept in a hold for 20 minutes prior to landing at MAN due to 'Technical Issues at MAN'. Scheduled arrival was 1630.

[THR RED ACC]

We were flying into Toronto Pearsons Int six days ago when the 744 ahead of us reported a near-miss with a small sized UFO (either a bird or a drone, suspected latter). They did sound a bit worried during transmission to ATC but as usual, ATC replied with, paraphrasing here, "nothing is on my radar so therefore it is not my problem".

Shame really. Looks like we are going to have to share the skies with birds AND drones now...

[deanm]

Note the altitude reported for this 'near miss': 6000 feet/2000 metres...

Kaiapoi is 17 km north of the departure airport (Christchurch), at 2-4 metres above seal level.

Dean

"A large red drone flew too close to an Air NZ aircraft on Friday night and authorities are after the operator who they think was in Kaiapoi."

Source: AAP
26 SEP 2015

"Air New Zealand says the operator of a drone put its customers and staff at risk and should have the courage to come forward.

The Civil Aviation Authority says a "sizeable" red drone that on Friday passed close to an Air NZ A320 plane with 166 passengers on board as it climbed out of Christchurch en route to Auckland is being recorded as a near miss.

Air NZ says no evasive action was taken by the pilot of flight NZ542 but customers and staff were put at risk.

"What our pilot believed to be a drone was being operated in and around the flight path, but was fortunately spotted by our pilots who ensured the aircraft avoided it," said Captain David Morgan, Air New Zealand's chief flight operations and safety officer.

"This was reckless behaviour by the drone operator who has so far not had the courage to come forward and address their behaviour with authorities."

Director of Civil Aviation Graeme Harris said the remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) passed close to the plane near Kaiapoi at an altitude of about 6000 feet.

CAA launched a full investigation shortly after the pilot reported the sighting and Transport Minister Simon Bridges was briefed on Friday night.

A new civil aviation rule for drones came into effect on August 1. Under the rule, anyone who wants to fly a drone beyond what is allowed for traditional model aircraft needs to apply for certification from the CAA.

"We have to assume that this RPAS pilot was unaware of the rules regarding flying unmanned aircraft," Mr Harris said.

"While RPAS technology is advancing quickly and offers some very significant benefits to a range of industries, it can pose a threat to conventional aviation activities and this must be carefully managed," he said."

Air NZ condemns drone operator | SBS News (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/09/26/air-nz-condemns-drone-operator)

[mickjoebill]

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=19555

Averages out at a penalty of $20k per flight.


Mickjoebill

[londonman]

Seems to me we're pussy-footing round this issue. The drones that are causing all the grief are the toy ones. So, they're toys...no reason why they should not be made illegal. And illegal to fly an existing one without a licence....which is never forthcoming.

[Ian W]

Seems to me we're pussy-footing round this issue. The drones that are causing all the grief are the toy ones. So, they're toys...no reason why they should not be made illegal. And illegal to fly an existing one without a licence....which is never forthcoming.

Unfortunately, the toothpaste is out of the tube. Hundreds of thousands of these things are in the hands of people who only know which way up to hold a newspaper if there are pictures and they only watch MTV and play computer games when not flying their octocopters :p. Enforcement of any rules is now close on impossible. Aviation is living on borrowed time - there will be a 'drone' manned aircraft mid-air sometime soon. Yet even then banning them will not be just a case of writing laws and regulations and demanding licensing. The people that will lose out here will be the conscientious model aero clubs.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

As far as the MAN incident goes, for anyone who knows the area, that would be somewhere near Woodbank Park, which makes sense.

That said what altitude can these things get to?

[cwatters]

That said what altitude can these things get to?

Look on youtube. There are claims of >4000 meters.

[akaSylvia]

Trafi.fi - News - New aviation regulation on the use of unmanned aircraft and model aircraft - Trafi.fi - News - New aviation regulation on the use of unmanned aircraft and model aircraft (http://www.trafi.fi/en/about_trafi/news/3588/new_aviation_regulation_on_the_use_of_unmanned_aircraft_and_ model_aircraft)

Finland has today introduced one of the most liberal aviation regulations in the world as regards the use of unmanned aircraft and flying models. The level of regulation depends on how the device is used. The requirements for model aircraft used for recreational purposes are significantly lighter than those for remotely piloted aircraft used professionally. On the other hand, professional operators may legally carry out such tasks that are not allowed for recreational flyers.

”Our brand new regulation on the use of unmanned aircraft is the most liberal in Europe, if not in the whole world. Right from the beginning, our goal has been to achieve as light a level of regulation as possible, and this has succeeded excellently in my opinion. The regulation leaves room for experiments and allows for the development of new business activities”, says Kari Wihlman, Director General at Trafi. ”We have wanted to pave the way for full-scale benefits to be gained from this new segment of aviation, and create opportunities for experimentation. It is particularly through tests and experiments that business activities can develop further.”

[BARKINGMAD]

New technology could blast drones out of the sky - BT (http://home.bt.com/tech-gadgets/tech-news/new-technology-could-blast-drones-out-of-the-sky-11364009466824)

Pity there isn't a similar portable device which would transmit pulses to ruin the "music" leaking from personal stereo deaf users!! :rolleyes:

[BARKINGMAD]

Well, that stopped the conversation, again!

Any nerds/techies out there prepared to comment on if/how effective the UAV jammer would be?? :O

[Mr Magnetic]

Disconnect the pilot from the aircraft mid-flight and without warning?

Can't see any potential for anything to go wrong there... :ugh:

Of course, in the UK at least, deliberately causing interference to a radio user / service is against the law - even in licence exempt bands.

[cwatters]

Many drones have some sort of fail safe mode they enter if control lost. Some just hover in place, some can return to base and land others will just crash. I believe the idea behind the jammer is to temporarily put the drone into fail safe mode in the hope that the pilot will "get the message" something is wrong. In many cases just having the drone crash will still be better than allowing it to continue flying.

[Mr Magnetic]

Unless you can verify in advance that your target will fail in a safe way, that seems like an unacceptable level of risk. Remember, anyone can DIY a drone with relative ease these days and the market for commercial products gas exploded. You simply cannot rely on the features advertised by any particular manufacturer being present in the speck that you happen to be looking at in the sky.

I suspect that this technology would prove more useful in situations where collateral damage is deemed more tolerable than it is within yards of a civilian airport in peace time.

I may be wrong, but this sounds like defence equipment to me...

[D.M.]

If the drone or multicopter is using hobby grade 2.4 then saturating the entire band would probably kill it.

A lot of 2.4 systems these days use frequency hopping, changing channel around every 100ms. This is used to ensure a robust RF link.

Probably not a great solution to the problem though....

[Mark in CA]

will be in Rwanda?

The world's first airport for drones will be built in Rwanda - Quartz (http://qz.com/519849/the-worlds-first-airport-for-drones-will-be-built-in-rwanda/)

[RiSq]

Some of these posts are amusing.

There's pilots here that have dabbled with RC and have some authority or knowledge to back up their statements and opinions.

But on the other hand, there is a hell of a lot who don't. It's mildly refreshing to see pilots who criticise the less informed or knowledgeable when they make posts regarding types and SOPs with "You have no understanding, so your input is invalid :ugh:" Yet they post misinformed comments here - the boot is on the other foot.

Not sure why, but that tickles me immensely:ok:

[mickjoebill]

All drones to be registered.
Wow, must be as dangerous as guns?? yet gun laws are not wholly effective in preventing them being used in anti social way.

U.S. government to announce drone registration rules on Monday - Fortune (http://fortune.com/2015/10/16/drones-register-department-of-transportation/)

May deter some from silly behaviour, but in general its not the law abiding that engauge in silly (or nefarious) behaviour.


Mickjoebill

[MG23]

May deter some from silly behaviour, but in general its not the law abiding that engauge in silly (or nefarious) behaviour.

Lucky the bad guys can't just make a drone in their garage, eh?

Still, regulators gotta regulate. And, to be fair, if you're flying something the size of a light aircraft, it should be treated as one. Hopefully there'll be a sane limit on the small end of the drone market, because the idea that every tourist is going to register their one-ounce selfie drone when they visit America is laughable.

[Sorry Dog]

it should be treated as one. Hopefully there'll be a sane limit on the small end of the drone market, because the idea that every tourist is going to register their one-ounce selfie drone when they visit America is laughable.

how true.... but then again if one refers to the war on drugs...it doesn't stop the guvment from spending billions to attempt the impossible... expect to see drone sniffing dogs in the near future...

[AviGuy]

U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx Announces Unmanned Aircraft Registration Requirement | Department of Transportation (http://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-transportation-secretary-anthony-foxx-announces-unmanned-aircraft-registration)

Long and short, in November, a group of 'experts' will set the guidelines for registering all unmanned aircraft, even toys. We will see what happens. If the sign up goes like ACA (Obamacare), we will spend over a year after the red line (and this administration holds red lines very seriously) trying to make a wb site that works, while all your emails go to some private server in a closet that no one knows about except Snowden.
Seriously, between 1 and 5 reports a day of these things flying near commercial aircraft, air ambulances, or fire fighters.

[Ian W]

It would appear that no-one has any idea of how many of these drones/uas/toys are around. Most toy shops have a few dozen assorted radio controlled helicopters of around 2 ozs weight hobbyist model shops perhaps a hundred or so. So let's be conservative and say that there are 20 million of these drones/toys in the wild. I do not see how it is feasible to put together an organization that would need to be the size of the state DMVs to maintain a registry of these toys/UAS/drones. But I can see how this would appear to be extremely attractive to an empire building bureaucrat. :hmm:

Even if it were done - it will not stop someone flying a small radio controlled aircraft into the path of a manned aircraft. But efficacy is not one of the requirements of a bureaucratic registration system.

[bubbers44]

Since birds have a history of causing many plane crashes and drones have not the government would accomplish much more by installing a transponder on all birds before registering small drones. That would keep them busy for a while.

[Mark in CA]

A drone operator who has a DJI account — verified with a credit card or phone number — would be able to unlock the drone in a restricted area. This would allow a firefighter or otherwise authorized person to fly a drone near a wildfire.
...
If an unauthorized user were to unlock their drone and fly in a restricted space, DJI would be able to help authorities track down the user.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/11/17/drone-companies-are-doubling-down-on-maps-to-address-safety/

[Mark in CA]

In an effort to enforce no-fly-zones across the city, Tokyo's Metropolitan Police Department is launching a drone squad.

Tokyo?s drone squad will deploy 10-foot drones armed with nets to police the sky | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/tokyos-drone-squad-will-deploy-10ft-drones-armed-with-nets-to-police-the-sky/)

[rightstuffer]

Putin?

I wonder if anyone's considered putting radio-controlled fins on a firework, and creating a mini-SAM? :E
I've often tried hitting a party balloon with a conventional model a/c - almost impossible but still fun. As for a firework, disposable radio gear could turn out expensive

[Photonic]

Just saw this on NPR web site, maybe not a complete fix but it covers the larger and more hazardous ones:

"Starting Dec. 21, all operators of small drones — devices weighing between 0.55 pounds and 55 pounds — need to go online and register their names and addresses with the Federal Aviation Administration. The government would issue a registration number that would need to be displayed on that person's entire fleet of drones."

No Longer Just A Toy: Regulators Say Drone Operators Are Pilots : The Two-Way : NPR (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/14/459661265/no-longer-just-a-toy-regulators-say-drone-operators-are-pilots)

Here's the PDF info sheet from the FAA:

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/20151213_IFR.pdf

[kcockayne]

Complete waste of time. The people who will cause trouble with their drones will ignore it ; the more so to avoid punishment when they pursue their dangerous antics near aircraft.
The only effective (& sane) approach is to ban these aircraft entirely !

[Mark in CA]

There appears to be an insane loophole in the new FAA regs on drone registration. Apparently, non-citizen operators can't register their drones. The FAA, by law, cannot register aircraft belonging to foreigners. They can issue a certificate of ownership, but that seems to be completely voluntary. So I guess any non-citizen terrorists wanting to use a drone can go right ahead without worrying that they are breaking the law! :)

Here;s the FAA's FAQ on this: UAS Registration Q&A (http://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/)

[aterpster]

kcockayne:

No doubt you are right for the most part. Maybe the feds have a plan they aren't discussing.

[kcockayne]

Let us hope so ! I don't wish to be a killjoy to those innocent operators of these machines; but does anyone NEED to use them ?

[Photonic]

Whether it's effective or not, what's interesting to me is that somehow the FAA decided to set the weight limit for "dangerous" drones at 0.55 lbs. Obviously there has to be some limit, because flyweight versions of these things are being sold in the thousands now as household toys. But was that based on any kind of testing, or are they just putting it in the "small bird strike" category and assuming it won't be a problem?

What's the result of a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft smacking into a drone that weighs a quarter pound?

[PDR1]

Let us hope so ! I don't wish to be a killjoy to those innocent operators of these machines; but does anyone NEED to use them ?

Does anyone NEED to use an ageing warbird at an air display (or at Reno)? Does anyone NEED to use a Pitts/Extra/WHY in a public place where they have a track record of injuring the public? Does anyone NEED to use a bottle of Jack Daniels (or even whisky)? Does anyone NEED to have 10 target-shooting firearms and 10,000 rounds of ammunition in their home? Does anyone NEED a motor vehicle capable of more than 75mph or a 0-60 time of less than 20seconds?

Start down that path and all of the above would be next on the list...

€0.03 supplied,

PDR

[Ian W]

Whether it's effective or not, what's interesting to me is that somehow the FAA decided to set the weight limit for "dangerous" drones at 0.55 lbs. Obviously there has to be some limit, because flyweight versions of these things are being sold in the thousands now as household toys. But was that based on any kind of testing, or are they just putting it in the "small bird strike" category and assuming it won't be a problem?

What's the result of a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft smacking into a drone that weighs a quarter pound?

Depends where it hits and the speed of the aircraft. Relatively light weight squashy birds have penetrated cockpits before.

I am not sure that the average 'drone' user who only changes away from MTV to play call-of-duty or Grand Theft Auto, will know that his drone needs to be registered. It is also this user that will see no problem at all in flying close to an airport.
But the bureaucrats have 'made a regulation' so that problem is solved. :rolleyes:

[kcockayne]

PDR1

You make a fair point; but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I guess that it is a question of assessing the danger of all these things. I accept that you can't ban everything that might be a danger. However, there must be limits, somewhere, to what you are allowed to do.

[bubbers44]

Flying drones is completely safe if you use basic common sense and abide by the rules. Don't fly over 400 ft, out of sight, over crowds and respect peoples property and privacy.

The rules are clear about flying near airports, restricted areas or near any aircraft. Most have GPS so won't fly into a restricted airspace or even take off if you are in one. Suggesting banning them with no reason because the word drone sounds scary is silly. Besides being a lot of fun to fly and do aerial photography they are being used a lot more to benefit all of us.

[kcockayne]

So, why is there a problem with them ? Or, is there ?

[mackoi]

Three weeks ago a C152 almost collides with a heavy quadcopter over the N entry point in LELL airport at 3000 feet AMSL (2500 AGL) while descending to land.

Other pilots reported drone activity in the traffic pattern of this airport at 1500 feet AGL.

[PDR1]

<However, there must be limits, somewhere, to what you are allowed to do.>

There ARE limits, clearly defined in law both here in the UK and over in the colonies. So what we're looking at here is finding effective means of law-enforcement, not a need for new laws. I suggest that the knee-jerk populism evidenced in the FAA regulation fails to provide effective law-enforcement.

Why? The people covered in the scope of this regulation can be divided into three groups:

1. Hobbyists (both "conventional" RC model flyers and "multicopter/FPV" flyers). These people have a long-term experience of and interest in the hobby. They are mostly members of national associations (like the BMFA in the UK or the AMA in the colonies), and carry 3rd-party liability insurance. They are aware of, and generally abide by the laws, restrictions, codes-of-practice and safety procedures applicable to their hobby and present insignificant risk to the public or to man-carrying aviation. The new regulation will not change their risk in any way.

2. Commercial or pseudo-commercial (academic) operators. These people have discovered the emergent multicopter technologies and use them to perform legitimate activities. They're a varied bunch - aerial photography for estate agents ("realtors" to colonials), aerial crop survey, small-scale crop-spraying, archaeological survey, wildlife photography & study* and even search & rescue** . Heck, last year I had a roofing specialist out to quote me for repairing leaks on my rental property. It's an old 3-storey edwardian house with high, gabled rooves that need scaffolding just to get up and take a look. This guy had a multicopter with an HD video camera and accurately surveyed the job in 20 mins, saving £1,00 on the final bill. These people are useful. They are also commercially licensed both in the UK and the states. They have an approved Operations Manual (very similar to any other Air Operator) which defines their operating limits, procedures, separations etc etc and they stick to them, They carry insurance, and these chaps & chapesses aren't a threat to anyone else either, and the new regulation will have no effect on their risk.

3. The "Hooligan" element. These are the people who do crazy things to get attention on youtube. Some film themselves driving cars through city centres at 200mph in the early hours of the morning. Some film themselves strapping fireworks to cats. Some film themselves playing silly-beggers with guns, and some use multicopters to take daring or dangerous footage (like filming aircraft in the pattern at airports). You can also include the peeping tom filmers and intrusive journalists in this group. These people are basically stupid. They are dangerous, ungovernble and reprehensible, and constitute the best argument I've seen for moving the abortion limit from 28 weeks to around 70 years. They represent a significant risk to the public and to manned aviation. This new regulation will have no effect on them whatsoever, because they won't register. They will simply operate covertly - the FPV vehicles which they use can be flown from inside the back of a van with blacked-out windows. Sure, Police officers might shoot down and seize an offending multicopter, but they'll have extreme difficulty finding the owner, and the owner will just go and spend another $600 on another one.

So the regulation will place a burden on those who are NOT a problem whilst being completely irrelevant to those who ARE a problem. And at a rough guess based on observations, of the people in the scope of the regulation well over 98% fall into the first two categories. Way to go, lawmakers!!

There is, of course, an interesting observation to make when it comes to conflicting demands on lower VFR airspace. Both the UK and the colonies are democracies. If it was ever deemed that general aviation and RC hobbyists could play nicely and share airspace so it came to a straight fight over who has the right to (say) the first 2,000 feet AGL I would be willing to bet a fairly substantial sum**** that the RC hobbyists outnumber the VFR man-carrying aviation fraternity by something like 50:1 in the UK and possibly a bit less in the states. So being a democracy the only *ethical* course of action would be to ban man-carrying aircraft from the lower (say) 3,000 feet AGL anywhere outside an ATZ. Do we *really* want to go there?

€0.03 supplied,

PDR

*A friend of mine does this commercially and has taken hours of footage of migrating birds in flight in africa and the various upper layers of rainforests for academic researchers and film/TV companies

** We've had cases of multicopters being used to take water, food, pocket-warmers and survival blankets to people trapped in bad weather on the moors or on cliff ledges where the mist was far too clagged in to consider flying a helicopter to them

*** [this footnote intentionally left blank]

****Perhaps two or even three Arbies Steak Sandwiches - not something I normally risk lightly

[bubbers44]

One reason for the 400 ft altitude limit and line of sight with drone at all times is to keep them clear of aircraft. Pilots use "See and be seen" to avoid other aircraft. Drone operators can not easily judge exactly how the drone altitude compares with a much larger aircraft so must stay below altitudes they normally use. The occasional helicopter that might fly lower can be avoided at ease.

I agree that the rogue operators will always be a problem because they don't follow any rules. Don't let them ruin it for the rest of us.

[G-CPTN]

There is a military low-flying corridor that passes over chez G-CPTN.

The area was flooded last weekend, and at the height of the flood, a guy turned up with a quadricopter that he had 'just bought' (for £1500).

It was fitted with a camera that was connected to the iPhone on the 'controller' so that you could see what the camera saw.

The guy remarked (not bragging, just stating 'fact') that it would operate up to 1500 metres (high), and he flew it at least half a mile away (as the crow flies) to hover over the flooded properties on the other side of the river.

Video subsequently appeared on the website of the local newspaper.

[Tourist]

So, why is there a problem with them ? Or, is there ?

Well, the simple answer is that there clearly isn't any problem other than humans inability to correctly assess risk.

Airplanes Hit More Turtles Than Drones | Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/airplanes-hit-more-turtles-than-drones)

But please don't let science and statistics get in the way of the anti drone crusade......

[ZOOKER]

In the U.K., in 2015, up to September, 15 Airprox reports have been filed involving 'drones'. One report involved a B757, doing 250kts in class 'A' airspace at 5000' to the west of Macclesfield. The CPA (closest point of approach), was estimated to be 150' (vertically). These filed reports are the encounters that are known about, there are likely to be others. Quite rightly, The Guild Of Air Traffic Controllers, (GATCO), is rather concerned about the proliferation of RPAS.

[DaveReidUK]

Any Airproxes involving turtles ?

[PDR1]

You may laugh at the turtle-strike risk, but given that we all know the world is a disk supported on a large stack of turtles (the whole "spheroid ball floating in an infinite universe" thing having obviously been shown to be NASA propaganda to assure the funding they needed to fake the moon landings) any turtle collision could risk destabilising the stack and the ending of the world as we know it. Fox News would see this as almost as serious threat as democrats.

But more seriously - in a nation which has schoolyard massacres every other month due to it's refusal to properly address its fire-arms fetish, spending time and money regulating the yet-to-materialise potential threat posed by "drones" is clearly populist twaddle. More of the general public have been killed or injured by light aircraft than by "drones", so clearly the first step should be to ban general aviation.

You know it makes sense.

PDR

[polka_dot_jersey]

Registration is going to do absolutely nothing other than be a cost and inconvenience for safe and law abiding drone users. Anyone that wants to use a drone to do harm or fly in a restricted airspace is going to build their own and ignore the registration requirement.

Before anyone jumps to, "we need to restrict the sale of drone parts!", it's not gonna work. The parts are cheap and readily available. All you need to build one are some electric motors, a battery, an RC transmitter & receiver, and a flight control board, oh, and some open source software. Keep in mind, the pioneers of hobby drones used the remote control from your kid's Nintendo Wii connected with a simple off the shelf board for their flight control boards!

The only thing excessive and pointless regulation is going to do at this point is prevent the advancement of drone technology for beneficial and commercial uses.

[ZOOKER]

"the advancement of drone technology for beneficial and commercial use"

Good observation PDJ, so how did we progress from interglacial cave-dwellers to our present state without this?

[Tourist]

so how did we progress from interglacial cave-dwellers to our present state without this?

Glad you asked.

We progressed by ignoring the Luddites who told us that just about every disruptive tech ever invented would bring our doom.

[airman1900]

From NBC sports article on a World Cup ski race in Italy titled:

Marcel Hirscher nearly hit by falling drone camera in slalom run (video)

VIDEO: Skier Marcel Hirscher nearly hit by falling drone | (http://olympics.nbcsports.com/2015/12/22/marcel-hirscher-drone-video-camera-slalom-alpine-skiing-world-cup/)

The world’s best Alpine skier was nearly taken out by a drone camera in the middle of a slalom run Tuesday night.

The drone was being used to video the race for TV.

[Carbon Bootprint]

Yikes. After looking at it from a number of angles from different sources, it seems the whole drone (not just the camera, as per the NBC headline) just dropped straight down out of the sky. The rotors appear to still be turning when it hits the ground. He appears to be very lucky it missed him.

[deanm]

How much does a drone that size weigh?

Dean

[cooperplace]

sadly, this will perhaps garner more publicity around the potential dangers of drones than lots of reports from pilots of near-misses.

[hkgmjq]

At this stage, any publicity about how dangerous and unregulated these things are is good publicity.

[Icarus2001]

about how dangerous and unregulated these things

This is completely untrue in Australia at any rate.

https://www.casa.gov.au/operations/standard-page/remotely-piloted-aircraft-rpa

I believe the UK is also strict.

[hkgmjq]

My apologies for my lack of clarity. It's true they are regulated in a number of countries, HK included.

Civil Aviation Department - Guidelines on Operations of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) (http://www.cad.gov.hk/english/Unmanned_Aircraft_Systems.html)

From what I've seen here however, there is little to no enforcement of any of these rules, particularly the VLOS one.

Example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvVu3qfADgw

And these things are on sale everywhere - toy stores and hobby stores all over the place. It's only a matter of time before something goes badly wrong, IMO.

[snowfalcon2]

It appears from media reports that this drone was fully licensed and operating accordingly. Still this near miss happened. This puts the incident into another, to me more severe, category than thrill seeking toy drone operators.

EDIT: Please let me explain. A toy drone operator near-missing an aircraft might conceivably think of his drone as relatively unharmful. After all, he may have seen videos of airplanes subjected to birdstrike tests in certification, and may have the impression that an airplane is somewhat robust.

Whereas an operator flying a drone over a racecourse, presumably with spectators close by without any form of protection, surely must be acutely aware of the risk to unsuspecting third parties his operation entails. I'm not downplaying the risk of drones to commercial aviation, but there is an equal risk to other unsuspecting people as shown here.

[RAT 5]

I was listening to a recent TV report about what the UK is considering about regulation. Stable door & horses comes t mind, but late is better than never. One thought comes to mind. Regulation is one thing, but identification is another. If people are flying drones in open residential space and they cause damage, or even cause a car crash what happens to identify the owner/operator? Imagine the ski crash happening on a motorway. Are drone carrying serial numbers which are registered on a central data base at purchase? Surely, if something is operating remotely, with a strong change of causing an offence, be it social disturbance or damage, then the operator should be identifiable.
Regulation without the ability to follow it up is ineffective.

[Tourist]

Serious question.

Why are you all so concerned about drones?

Yes they have the potential to cause accidents.

So what?

A million things are a higher risk but we ignore them.

Statistics show that drones which have been around for years now have so far caused absolutely no accidents whatsoever to civil aircraft.

Everything has risk.

Intelligent people concentrate on the high risks first.

Americans have guns.
Guns can be shot at aircraft.
guns are shot at aircraft.

Are guns regulated?

Cessnas (other puddle jumpers are available!) flown by PPLs have a long history of killing airliners and people on the ground.
If they are allowed to continue, they will kill more people.
They are entirely for the entertainment of those on board.

Should we ban them?

People need to get a life and accept risks, particularly vanishingly small ones.

[cattlerepairman]

Tourist,

we are accustomed to a "minimize risk" environment. It is hard to argue that UAVs pose "no risk".
Your blunt statement is...true. It is about relative risk - how one dangerous thing compares to another dangerous thing. You cannot fight all battles - pick the ones that matter.

Imagine the horror when motor vehicles became available! ANYONE could go get one. You had to have a flag man walk ahead of you (the government's feeble attempt to use railroad rules to control the automotive dangers).

Society learned, to a point, to cope with this invention. People continue to kill themselves and others with it. It is acceptable to society. Not banned or outlawed. Controlled - but not even to the best of its abilities (we could mandate self-driving-capable car technology, so that technology could overrule driver input, when the latter is stupid or dangerous). We choose to use this with very, very much restraint (stability systems etc., but no automatic limiter to speed limits, for example).

Good post, Tourist.

[evansb]

Myth busting: Luddites were not against new technology because it was new, it was because the technology introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace them with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work.

[RAT 5]

I think you are missing the point, and quoting Luddism is not relevant. No-one is against the correct use of the technology. It is a brilliant invention and has some extraordinary uses, many could be life saving in sending recede drones before an assault (military) and in a search & rescue roll (civil) You could send up a squadron of GPS autopilot controlled camera drones to grid search an area, be it for lost climbers or even at sea for a missing boat. Absolutely excellent. Also monitor a crash scene on a motorway to help the logistics for the attending services.
Equally you can go to any toy shop and buy a toy and cause severe injury even death. Read #436. Did this drone crash due to technical failure or operator error. Now imagine some muppet flies one over a motorway in the same way people stand on bridges to gawp at the traffic. They lose control or it fails and there is a multi-car pile up. It was not a certified a/c operated by a licensed operator in a safety critical public place. What would your reaction be if your family was in one of the cars? What would your reaction be if some muppet had drop a concrete block off a bridge, same result. (it has happened). What's the difference? Surely you would like to trace the culprit. There is no registration number on a concrete block but there could/should be on drones, surely.
This is not an argument isolated to drones v a/c.

People continue to kill themselves and others with it cars.

Yes, but you can identify by whom.

I can guarantee the first time severe injury or death is caused by a toy drone there will a clamour for registration/regulation. We are in an industry that is supposed to be proactive in accident consideration, not reactive.

[Tourist]

Myth busting: Luddites were not against new technology because it was new, it was because the technology introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace them with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work.

Yes, I'm aware what Luddites were.....

How strange that many people who are against drones which fly themselves around without highly trained well paid pilots are in fact highly trained well paid pilots....

Fancy that?

[Tourist]

I can guarantee the first time severe injury or death is caused by a toy drone there will a clamour for registration/regulation. We are in an industry that is supposed to be proactive in accident consideration, not reactive.

I agree, there will be knee jerk reaction.
Let's be honest there is lots of knee jerk reaction despite the fact there has been nothing to react to yet!



The drone crashing on the ski slope was a professional camera drone. I am willing to bet it was operating in a regulated manner, yet still it crashed.

A bit like when regulated helicopters carrying cameras crash really.

[RAT 5]

Tourist: I'm not concentrating on 'regulated' drones & 'regulated' operators: I'm concentrating on being able to identify who owned the drone that causes damage or worse.I'm talking about registration. That does not mean their use is restricted in any unreasonable manner; it just means you know which muppets are using them after they've crashed & burned somewhere they shouldn't.

Let's be honest there is lots of knee jerk reaction despite the fact there has been nothing to react to yet!

I don't think you can react in a 'knee jerk' manner before anything has happened: by definition. Being proactive, after sensible considerations about possibilities, is something quite different. It is what many of us in aviation do on a daily basis. If we did not do so the victim public would castigate us for not doing so.

[Ian W]

It is difficult to see how a registration scheme will ever work. These big toy UAS are bought by MTV watchers who take breaks to play call-of-duty and grand-theft-auto. They will not be aware or care about an FAA regulation nor will they hear about large fines imposed as MTV won't carry that and if they did call-of-duty would be played in preference to watching a talking head.

The toothpaste is out of the tube and the ANSPs have been far too slow to act. It was apparent 10 years ago that this could become a problem just with normal full size commercial UAS and model aircraft with payloads. But the bureaucracies preferred to just not take notice and wait out the commercial pressure that would 'go away'. Except it didn't and several enablers became available concurrently, small GPS, powerful small electric engines, and, control electronics for stability of multiple rotor UAS. Suddenly as the draft regulations for sub-55# UAS were being published the world wass flooded with grown up toy UAS being sold everywhere from traditional model aircraft shops to literally anywhere - I saw some in Bed Bath and Beyond.

Even if there was a bad crash due to a UAS/airliner collision, the use of UAS would not be affected there are just too many of them. Standards, regulations and laws could have been in place years ago, but it was easier to just say no. The toy UAS was not considered as ANSPs thought all UAS would be Predator like and need a large commercial organization. Not something that can be bought anywhere and flown by an unsupervised teenager.

The ball was dropped 10 years ago.

[evansb]

To quote Henry David Thoreau: "Were all these vast designs and rapid strides worth it? In truth, no. “They are but improved means to an unimproved end.”

[Tourist]

Tourist: I'm not concentrating on 'regulated' drones & 'regulated' operators: I'm concentrating on being able to identify who owned the drone that causes damage or worse.I'm talking about registration. That does not mean their use is restricted in any unreasonable manner; it just means you know which muppets are using them after they've crashed & burned somewhere they shouldn't.



So let me get this straight.

Despite the fact that no drone has yet caused any of the predicted deaths despite millions being operated by morons all over the planet, you are planning ahead for the scenario of not being able to work out who caused the problem despite the fact that finding the culprit has not yet been a problem with any of the drones that have strayed so far?

I bet your pre take-off briefs last for aaaaages......




.

I don't think you can react in a 'knee jerk' manner before anything has happened: by definition. Being proactive, after sensible considerations about possibilities, is something quite different.



"Sensible considerations about possibilities"

That is the bit where you are supposed to do a risk assessment based upon actual empirical data rather than preconceptions and fear of change.

Drones are ubiquitous and have caused zero accidents.
In the same period airliners have crashed for a dizzying range of reasons which many on here should be stressed about, but you worry about drones?!

One of the first signs of people operating beyond their capabilities in a cockpit is inappropriate focus on minutia rather than correct prioritisation.......

[Mr Magnetic]

It is difficult to imagine how a registration scheme could be enforced for any small electronic devices in this day and age.

An invention known as the internet has made it possible, no commonplace, for individuals to import goods directly from the far east one unit at a time. The vast majority of companies satisfying this demand are more than happy to lie on their customs declaration and claim any contents are a gift of less than $5 value, or to falsely claim there are no lithium batteries included in the shipping documents, so relying on the seller notifying an authority of sales is a non-starter.

That means any registration scheme would have to rely on the purchaser notifying the authority of their purchase after the fact. If you were a wreckless drone operator, would you register?

[Mark in CA]

A serious look at the economics of drone delivery by Flexport, a shipping industry blog.

Despite drones’ current inability to match the efficiency of a delivery truck’s milk run, the economics of delivering air freight by drone seem compelling. That’s why Amazon and Google are investing in the R&D. That’s why Matternet is testing drone deliveries with Swiss Post and Swiss World Cargo. And that’s why the drone community expects deliveries to happen—even if not as quickly as executives like Bezos promise.

https://www.flexport.com/blog/drone-delivery-economics/

[G-CPTN]

The concept of 'Amazon' delivering parcels by drone seemed something of a pipe dream when it was first made public, but, however, having seen a video produced by a local, the definition is outstanding, and, by adding two-way sound it would seem possible to 'deliver' the parcel to a recipient with them responding to questions of identity and showing ID in return for release of the load - so not so far-fetched?

[cwatters]

Google says some Amazon distribution centres handle 35 orders per second. If just 10% are shipped by drone that's at least 3 per second or 10,000 drone flights an hour.

[PDR1]

There are other more practical obstacles. Current battery technology would limit drone delivery devices to rather short ranges (perhaps 3-5 miles) with any significant payload (much more than a couple of kilos). They could extend this by fitting onboard generators powered by (say) internal combustion engines, but this would not only be noisy - I think the public acceptability of petrol-containing drones flying around would be even less likely than for the electric flavour.

I also struggle with the implied assumption that delivery drones would be exempt from the vessel-vehicle-structure-person separation rules which currently even apply to a 1 kilo radio-controlled model aeroplane.

PDR

PS - High Colin [it's Pete R]

[Una Due Tfc]

A drone was spotted at FL070 in the hold at a busy European airport last summer by traffic. Never underestimate the stupidity of people

[peekay4]

There are other more practical obstacles. Current battery technology would limit drone delivery devices to rather short ranges (perhaps 3-5 miles) with any significant payload (much more than a couple of kilos).
Amazon's latest prototype drone can already fly 15 miles with a target payload of ~ 5 lbs (2.26 kg). Currently, more than 80% of Amazon orders are under 5 lbs.

The drone is a hybrid design -- it is an octocopter with vertical takeoff / landing, but also has wings and a pusher prop to fly like a conventional rc aircraft to/from the destination.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/11/30/amazon-has-a-new-drone-delivery-video-here-are-8-details-worth-noting/

[Flying Binghi]

via G-CPTN:
The concept of 'Amazon' delivering parcels by drone seemed something of a pipe dream when it was first made public, but, however, having seen a video produced by a local, the definition is outstanding, and, by adding two-way sound it would seem possible to 'deliver' the parcel to a recipient with them responding to questions of identity and showing ID in return for release of the load - so not so far-fetched?

I think it is facebook that has nearly perfected facial recognition. So, just stand and look at the drone camera and the delivery is done.... although, it could be a .22 head shot from the drone...:ooh:.......... villainous opportunity is boundless.




.

[ConnieLover]

Drones. Are. Dangerous. Always.

Pandora’s Box has been opened, and even the most ardent drone users and those who support them will eventually realize how wrong they are.

Remember the recent (Dec. 22, 2015) incident in which the world’s best downhill skier almost got hit by a 22-pound camera drone operated by a newsman that fell out of the sk ust behind the skier? (It apparently fell because of radio interference.) It is terrifying to think what could easily have happened to that skier had that drone either fallen right in front of him or actually hit him. It missed him by inches! Remember -- he was going more than 90 mph at the time the drone fell near him, and that drone was being operated by a supposedly responsible person.

There is absolutely no justification for using these things anywhere -- except in rare circumstances -- and even then they are dangerous. Getting news out is not, and will never be, one of those rare circumstances. And Jeff Bezos and Google’s top execs and everyone else who uses or wants to use these very dangerous things should be ashamed of themselves for putting making lots of money or having fun ahead of caring intensely about everyone’s safety.

[Tourist]

Drones. Are. Dangerous. Always.


Cars. Are. Dangerous. Always
Guns. Are Dangerous. Always.
Lasers. Are. Dangerous. Always.
Tigers. Are. Dangerous. Always
Spiders. Are. Dangerous. Always.
Stars. Are. Dangerous. Always.
Trousers. Are. Dangerous. Always.
Children. Are. Dangerous. Always.
Nerf guns. Are. Dangerous. Always.
Vajazzles. Are. Dangerous. Always.




This is a great game!!

It would be even better if these risks were ranked in order of deaths/serious injuries caused in the last decade. That way we could have relative risk shown which would provide us with a way of showing the stupidity of knee jerk reactions.

Or, we could just ban everything which has any risk associated with it.

That would, of course require the destruction of every gram of matter in the universe including ourselves, but that is a small price to pay in the search for safety......

[cwatters]

Remember the recent (Dec. 22, 2015) incident in which the world’s best downhill skier almost got hit by a 22-pound camera drone operated by a newsman that fell out of the sk ust behind the skier? (It apparently fell because of radio interference.)

Humm. I've been a model flyer on and off for 40 years. It's very common to claim interference caused a crash.... Oh look I have no control therefore it must be interference and can't possibly be my fault... when in reality there could be any number of causes. Low receiver battery, faulty wiring, faulty mechanics, unseen previous crash damage etc

I haven't bothered to investigate what model of drone was involved in the above incident but don't many that size claim to have some sort of fail safe, hover on the spot or return to base function in the event of loss of valid signal? Why didn't that work?

If Amazon end up making 20,000 flights an hour (see above) then they will need to be exceptionally reliable to avoid having a lot of crashes. One crash per million flights equates to about one crash a week. Would most be over cities? Would that be acceptable?

[Mark in CA]

The Drone - trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Hhvdpvp5o)

[polka_dot_jersey]

Humm. I've been a model flyer on and off for 40 years. It's very common to claim interference caused a crash.... Oh look I have no control therefore it must be interference and can't possibly be my fault... when in reality there could be any number of causes. Low receiver battery, faulty wiring, faulty mechanics, unseen previous crash damage etc

I haven't bothered to investigate what model of drone was involved in the above incident but don't many that size claim to have some sort of fail safe, hover on the spot or return to base function in the event of loss of valid signal? Why didn't that work?

I highly doubt the crash was due to signal interference. If it was the operating company is completely unqualified to be operating drones around people.

The flight software can be programmed to do any number of safer things given a loss of signal: hover, land in place, return to base, maintain course and altitude. I can hardly believe a professional drone filming company would set their drones to "plummet to the ground" on signal loss (and yes this is an option).

I would guess it was caused by some sort of mechanical failure. Like any other machine, parts can fail, solders can crack, propellers can shatter, etc.

[Ian W]

If Amazon end up making 20,000 flights an hour (see above) then they will need to be exceptionally reliable to avoid having a lot of crashes. One crash per million flights equates to about one crash a week. Would most be over cities? Would that be acceptable?

The crashes won't happen in the calm sunny days that Amazon show in their advertising and presumably in which all their testing has taken place. It will happen in the bad weather, wind, heavy rain, hail showers, snow, sleet etc.. In cities the Venturi effect between buildings can be extreme with a benign 15kt wind becoming random funneled 50kt gusts. Anyone who has flown helicopters in cities will be aware of these issues, an automated UAS with less than 30kt max speed has no chance.

There are going to be days or even weeks when the UAS delivery system will at best not work at worse will deliver dead UASs and packages to unwilling recipients. One person killed by an Amazon UAS and all the investment will be wasted. I cannot see this delivery UAS idea passing even a cursory safety assessment. That is before we get to the security acceptance of anonymous autonomous UAS flying 5lb packages around major cities like DC, New York or London.

[RAT 5]

That is before we get to the security acceptance of anonymous autonomous UAS flying 5lb packages around major cities like DC, New York or London.

There is also the social disturbance/invasion of privacy topic you read about. Camera toting drones over-flying private areas, taking photos/spying, and then posting them on some titivating 'no-one gives a toss' social website. If you could trace the owner you could take some action, especially if it dumps itself on your property. One sure way to capture said pesky intruder is to engage the use of a trusty shotgun. It will happen, especially in some of the more outlying properties where people like to 'look after themselves' and not trouble local services with trivial complaints.

[Ian W]

That is before we get to the security acceptance of anonymous autonomous UAS flying 5lb packages around major cities like DC, New York or London.

There is also the social disturbance/invasion of privacy topic you read about. Camera toting drones over-flying private areas, taking photos/spying, and then posting them on some titivating 'no-one gives a toss' social website. If you could trace the owner you could take some action, especially if it dumps itself on your property. One sure way to capture said pesky intruder is to engage the use of a trusty shotgun. It will happen, especially in some of the more outlying properties where people like to 'look after themselves' and not trouble local services with trivial complaints.

Already happened:

"Kentucky man arrested after shooting down $1,800 drone with shotgun"
"Taking place in a town called Hillview just south of Louisville, Kentucky, 47-year-old William H. Merideth used his shotgun to fire on a drone that was hovering over his property during late Sunday afternoon. According to an account of the incident, the shotgun blast hit the drone and the hardware crashed in a field in the vicinity of Merideth’s home (http://www.digitaltrends.com/home/). When police arrived to investigate the weapon fire, Merideth admitted that he shot down the drone because it was flying over his home (http://www.digitaltrends.com/home/)."
Man arrested after shooting down $1,800 drone with shotgun | Digital Trends (http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/kentucky-man-arrested-after-shooting-down-1800-drone-with-shotgun/)

Addition:
And never ones to miss a marketing opportunity:

Man vs. machine: New shotgun shell being marketed for shooting down drone
"Hobby drone usage is on the rise, with its privacy implications causing some discomfort. However, an ammunition company has apparently devised a solution: a shotgun shell marketed specifically to shoot down nosy camera drones right out of the sky. The shells are given the name “Dronemunition” by their seller, Snake River Shooting Products (http://snakerivershootingproducts.com/ammunition/). The packaging encourages buyers to “prepare for the drone apocalypse” with a subheading clarifying that they are referring to “the invasion of privacy” apocalypse that camera drones will bring.
The shells are 3-inches long and are full of #2 steel shot -- about .15 inches in diameter. The ammunition is relatively large, so firing it at a drone will smash it into a pile of useless metal and plastic. " :eek:

[Tourist]

One person killed by an Amazon UAS and all the investment will be wasted. I cannot see this delivery UAS idea passing even a cursory safety assessment. That is before we get to the security acceptance of anonymous autonomous UAS flying 5lb packages around major cities like DC, New York or London.

You are not thinking this through intelligently.

Currently, vast numbers of packages are delivered by road vehicles. Those vehicles kill people on a daily basis.


Note, not might kill.
Not have potential to kill.
They do kill.
1 million people die in road accidents every year.
Delivery vehicles are involved in those statistics.


A quick perusal online finds this document from the UK Office of National Statistics.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/10136/ras20001.xl



Some Amazon drones will undoubtedly fall out of the sky.


Of those that do, a vanishingly small amount of them (the surface of the earth covers many millions of square feet, and relatively few of those feet have a person standing on them) will actually hit a person.


Of that tiny number, some will be hurt.


Of that number, some will die.



That "some will die" would be a big deal if they were extra deaths, but they are not. They are potential drone of Damocles deaths compensated for by the reduction in actual road delivery deaths.


A look at the table linked suggests that Amazon drones can kill at least 2000 people per year before we should consider them a more dangerous option than light delivery vehicles.......





p.s. Your point about security doesn't even bear the briefest consideration.


Does it make a difference to you if a drone rather than a delivery man delivers your bomb or sarin?