Drones threatening commercial a/c?

[RAT 5]

Methinks Tourist has an undeclared interest in drones. Pray do tell.

[FDMII]

RAT 5, yeah, certainly reads that way.

What I see in the posts are the same familiar statements from those who only have commercial interests at heart but don't seem to have a first notion of how the remarkable levels of safety have been achieved in aviation over the decades.

The argument (re methods of delivery and numbers of fatalities, etc.), is understood, but what I see is the reliance upon statistical concepts to justify a continuing acceptance of a known, (and growing) risk.

It's not the kind of thinking that yields continuous improvement in any endeavour, but particularly aviation.

Despite an encouraging responsible use of drone technology by large commercial interests, there remain some drone users who seem incapable of, or unwilling to exercise responsible use and so these kinds of arguments certainly are not going to delimit drone use and curtail regulatory involvement.

[airman1900]

From an article from the Wall Street Journal, Dec 30, 2015, page B1:

Regulators Weigh Satellite Tracking for Delivery Drones - WSJ (http://on.wsj.com/1IF6vSC)

Federal Aviation Administration official Don Walker said at a public meeting earlier this month that drones flying beyond sight of operators ultimately “are likely to have ADS-B receivers.” The receivers would enable drones to sense manned aircraft and automatically avoid them. The receivers wouldn’t broadcast the drones’ location, which could confound air-traffic controllers’ view of the airspace.

Mr. Walker said ADS-B likely wouldn’t be used for drones within sight of the operator, which include virtually all drones flying today, because that would overwhelm the system’s capacity.


To me: "automatically", "receivers wouldn’t broadcast the drones’ location", "confound" and "overwhelm" sounds like a bad recipe.

[DaveReidUK]

The receivers would enable drones to sense manned aircraft and automatically avoid them.

That's good to hear.

Until two drones collide with each other ...

[msbbarratt]

The receivers would enable drones to sense manned aircraft and automatically avoid them.Er, not all manned aircraft have ADS-B. Isn't that so?

And if that was the means by which drones and aircraft were going to safely share the same airspace, doesn't that mean that ADS-B (and everything behind it, such as the GPS, etc) then becomes safety critical equipment? And doesn't that then mean that jamming GPS becomes a good way of creating dangerous airspace?

I think there would have to be more to it than "just" ADS-B.

[oldshoremore2]

Once they find it more rewarding than clays or tasteless sinewy birds, the field sportsmen will probably see off the menace. Could injure the odd lab though..... If they don't, the Vinnies of the inner city will! It is too tempting.

[MarcK]

Let's see: There are 24 bits of address for ADS-B. USA has a 20-bit address space, or just over 1 million unique addresses. 915,000 of those correspond to N-numbers that are, or can be, issued. That leaves 100,000 for all the drones.

[Mr Magnetic]

The problem is that there are idiots around who have graduated from l@ser pointers to flying these small UAS who are going to cause the entire commercial industry and for that matter model aircraft flying to be outlawed. They will do that by bringing down a passenger aircraft.

I'd be very interested to hear about any evidence demonstrating that any individuals have progressed from using laser pointers to flying small UAS in close proximity to manned aircraft.

[Ian W]

I'd be very interested to hear about any evidence demonstrating that any individuals have progressed from using laser pointers to flying small UAS in close proximity to manned aircraft.

As there have been many recorded cases of small UAS (aka Drones) flying close to airliners and the UAS 'pilots' have not been caught such proof may be difficult. Even after an incident it will be impossible to identify the 'pilot' of the UAS. The point I was making was that while we (or most here) have an innate knowledge of aviation and what the basic rules are, a significant minority of the population do not. Children shine flash-lights into the air to see the beam, l@ser pointer owners do the same, some see if they can 'illuminate' an aircraft, I doubt very much that they are deliberately trying to cause vision problems for the pilots; they just don't think about that, they are trying to show a green spot on the aircraft flying overhead.

It is the same lack of thought and similar ignorance of effects that will have a toy UAS 'pilot' see if they can get a close up picture of an airliner. If you find some of their websites you will see examples of such idiocy - I saw one in UK where the 'pilot' liked flying the UAS up through the cloud base to see if the UAS could get above the cloud layer. :rolleyes: There was zero thought that being in London might mean that the UAS was now at the same level as final approach patterns into one of the airports.

All airports with final approaches over towns are at risk of this mindless 'play'. It is just the same lack of thought that leads to the l@ser pointer 'play'. All 'players' involved will be able to give you detailed breakdown of the programs. charts and performers on MTV - but have zero knowledge of aviation. Fulminations here or in governments, severe sentences even given, are not going to stop these 'players' as they will be ignorant of them.

[RAT 5]

Last night, at 00.00 there were many people letting off the new fad of Chinese Laterns (mini hot air balloons powered by an internal flame). I was 500m south of the centreline of a major international hub. The wind, a healhty 5-10kts was from the south. I watched as a squadron of these lanterns scrambled on their flight path through the centreline what I'd estimate was not far off the 5-700' of the ILS.
We all accept, in our profession, that Murphy's Law is alive and well and it needs our vigilance & provocativeness to safeguard against its consequences. If it can then someday it will. It's a when not if philosophy, to be delayed as long as possible.
It does not, IMHO, seem a negative attitude to apply this philosophy to drones and their mis-use. There are more ignorant muppets out there than intelligent ones.
Most model aeroplane flyers have a strong code of ethics and common sense. They feel part of our industry and respect it. I'm not sure the drone fraternity shares that same culture.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

EGLL operations suspended for 10 minutes today due to "drone activity". Can't imagine the disruption that caused.

[DaveReidUK]

EGLL operations suspended for 10 minutes today due to "drone activity". Can't imagine the disruption that caused.

I suspect it's no coincidence that 09L was in use for landings today. Same runway that the BA A320 had a drone encounter on finals for in July 2014.

[wallregg]

ATC advised the drone was spotted at 1000 feet to the east of the airport.

More of a problem for 09R.

And me, waiting to push back the last aircraft of my shift :mad:

[ZOOKER]

'Tourist'
Come on in......Are you receiving? This is 'Luddite'...over?

[RAT 5]

There is a similar thread on Jet Blast. Why not combine them on there? Some comments are repeated.

[Tourist]

'Tourist'
Come on in......Are you receiving? This is 'Luddite'...over?

Hmm, since my responses are being removed by moderators with a "little" bias, I have become less interested....



However, yes, can I help you?

Have drones suddenly caused mass death to confirm your pre-conceived ideas?

Have Heathrow decided to stop flying for buzzards too?

[Mark in CA]

Intel announced the acquisition of German drone maker Ascending Technologies.

Intel Follows Qualcomm into Drone Market, Buys German Startup (http://recode.net/2016/01/04/intel-follows-qualcomm-into-drone-business-with-german-startup-purchase/)

Meanwhile, Parrot has introduced a fixed-wing drone capable of autonomous take-off and flies at 50 mph:

Parrot's new Disco drone ditches quadcopter design for a fixed-wing aircraft (http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/4/10711178/new-parrot-disco-drone-announced-ces-2016)

[Mark in CA]

"Property owners deserve to be free from harassment and invasion of their privacy," he said in a statement sent to Ars. "Likewise, aircraft operators need to know the boundaries in which they can legally operate without risk of being shot down. This lawsuit will give clarity to everyone."
...
Brendan Schulman, the top lawyer for world's largest drone manufacturer, DJI, told Ars that if drones are being treated increasingly like aircraft—particularly given recent US registration requirements—then that should extend to being shot at as well.
After neighbor shot down his drone, Kentucky man files federal lawsuit (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/man-whose-drone-was-shot-down-sues-shotgun-wielding-neighbor-for-1500/)

[bubbers44]

Most drones are designed to be no danger to people on the ground by using GPS with return home capability and are very stable so merely releasing the controls on the remote will bring it to a rapid hover at the altitude it was flying.

Shooting down a drone makes it a falling object that could hurt people on the ground. Therefore the shooter should be charged with endangering the public by creating a hazard by his stupidity.

[Ambient Sheep]

Not in my airspace: Airbus rolls out anti-drone system | Network World (http://www.networkworld.com/article/3019660/security/not-in-my-airspace-airbus-rolls-out-anti-drone-system.html)

[fox niner]

Now then. This drone hype is really taking off. Check this out:

Take a ride in the Ehang 184 autonomous helicopter drone (http://mashable.com/2016/01/06/autonomous-ehang-184)

A drone capable of transporting one person. Sets you back about $200.000 but hey, it is so easy to fly that any chopper pilot should fear for his job.

[fox niner]

This Ehang drone will take humanity directly to the age of the Jetsons.
Found this youtube movie:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_vGd1Oy7Cw0

It shows how easy the controls are. You actually have a button: "takeoff" and "land"!

All controlled by your Ipad via an app in the appstore! :E

[DaveReidUK]

It shows how easy the controls are. You actually have a button: "takeoff" and "land"!

Hmmm. No sign of a button marked "autorotate", then ?

[mackoi]

Toddler lost an eye after drone went out of control:

Toddler loses an eye after consumer drone spins out of control (http://mashable.com/2015/11/30/child-loses-eye-drone/#BFJU5PDpJqqr)

Covered by the BBC as well:

Toddler's eyeball sliced in half by drone propeller - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-34936739)

[Tourist]

ouch..................

[LlamaFarmer]

Nasty. Surprised it's not happened more often yet.

[BDiONU]

Now then. This drone hype is really taking off.
A drone capable of transporting one person. Sets you back about $200.000 but hey, it is so easy to fly that any chopper pilot should fear for his job.Uuummmhhh how does an unmanned aerial vehicle (a drone) transporting a person, who 'çontrols' it, continue to remain unmanned?

[PDR1]

Hmmm. No sign of a button marked "autorotate", then ?

Given that (as far as I can see) it has fixed-pitch props I think it's unlikely that it has one...

PDR

[Sorry Dog]

A drone capable of transporting one person. Sets you back about $200.000 but hey, it is so easy to fly that any chopper pilot should fear for his job.

I think chopper pilots everywhere can breathe a sigh of relief... I read a few articles about it and the company that makes it has yet to put forth much in the way of operation and control information and even video of it transporting a person is limited to shots of a few seconds.
Basically there are a lot more question than answers right now. As cool as the concept is, I'm guessing there is a truckload of development still left as there are still obvious safety issues such as lack of guards for finger eating blades and the already mentioned auto rotation. Or the same questions that perplexes fixed wing auto flight such as AI capable of see and avoid... and the bit about it automatically conversing with ATC? Ha! I'd like to listen to that conversation to JFK controllers as they machine gun out ,"Attention, drone delta uniform mike one one, ya have traffic on yer left, hold-er position." ...and then ... in soft lady voice that all automated phone menu have ,"I'm sorry [pause] I could not quite understand that, let's try that again. Would you please repeat that last phrase, [pause]or if you like, please wait a moment to speak directly to the operator."

[Ian W]

Uuummmhhh how does an unmanned aerial vehicle (a drone) transporting a person, who 'çontrols' it, continue to remain unmanned?

This is actually a very valid question. Much of the safety/certification issues for UAS are based on not having to worry about persons on board. There are several 'optionally piloted vehicles' or unmanned passenger carrying UAS such as Making Unmanned Search And Rescue A Reality: Unmanned K-MAX® Helicopter Conducts First Collaborative Casualty Evacuation · Lockheed Martin (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2015/april/150429-mst-sas-unmanned-kmax-helicopter-conducts-first-collaborative-casualty-evacuation.html) and Unmanned Little Bird (ULB) Helicopter UAV - Army Technology (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/littlebirdhelicopter/) and these provide problems for the safety people.

Importantly, there is considerable concern over 'autonomous' UAS. ICAO is insisting they are Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPV) as is the FAA. The major problem inhibiting the use of these vehicles is the total mistrust of them by the ANSP safety groups. Not to mention understandable pressure from IFALPA, not only on the jobs front but also concern about being 'in the pattern' with an automated UA that will not have the same reactions as a manned aircraft.

Some of these issues will not be simple to solve, which is frustrating for the engineers who often do not really understand the safety issues that are raised by UAS.

[xray one]

Departed out of New York last night with a report, via PIREP, of a drone @ 5,800' on the coast to the east.

[Tourist]

Departed out of New York last night with a report, via PIREP, of a drone @ 5,800' on the coast to the east.

Was anybody hurt?
Did the airliner crash?


........or was it much like seeing a bird fly by?

[xray one]

Tourist just reporting what occurred for info.

You are obviously not a pilot or you would realise birds don't fly that high at night (with the possible exception of geese using mountain wave during migration). I did have a night time birdstrike out of Miami once at about 1,000', fairly sure it wasn't a drone...but still made a loud thud as it hit the windscreen! A drone, I fear, would be much louder.

[Tourist]

Don't they?

I must admit that I assumed that birds were not really night flyers until I started using NVG's and then I was very surprised how many were around.

How did they ID it as a drone at night incidentally?

Was it lit up?

[Herod]

Well, birds don't generally have coloured strobes.

[RealUlli]

Uuummmhhh how does an unmanned aerial vehicle (a drone) transporting a person, who 'çontrols' it, continue to remain unmanned?

SLF speaking: as a piece of SLF? :p

SCNR :)

Actually, I think technically we're not that far from man-carrying drones. I think they can be kept stable quite easily (see how a high end DJI behaves in windy conditions) and can be made man-carrying (see Volocopter, still in development, but they're on a good way).

The question that remains is how to control them, and what license do you need to ride in one? (I'm saying ride, since it's obviously not a heli, but something highly computer controlled)

[golfbananajam]

Drone register gives 'accountability' says FAA

A new US drone register will help promote a "culture of accountability" the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Michael Huerta has told BBC Click.

Existing drone owners have until 19 February 2016 to put their details online. Anyone who does not comply could face heavy fines.

The FAA has said that in "severe cases" of drone abuse a criminal prosecution could result in a $250,000 (£175,000) fine and a maximum of three years in prison.

[BDiONU]

SLF speaking: as a piece of SLF? :p

SCNR :)
The question that remains is how to control them, and what license do you need to ride in one? (I'm saying ride, since it's obviously not a heli, but something highly computer controlled)But the SLF is not just SLF. They decide on the route, they decide on take off and landing point and so on. So the SLF is not just along for the ride but consciously decides when and where to land and instructs the "aircraft" to do so.
Until a different definition comes along these are not UAVs but manned aircraft with all the necessary licensing that comes with that.
IMHO of course :8

[londonman]

A very relevant article here from the UK perspective

Drones involved in near misses at UK airports - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35442130)

[Ian W]

SLF speaking: as a piece of SLF? :p

SCNR :)

Actually, I think technically we're not that far from man-carrying drones. I think they can be kept stable quite easily (see how a high end DJI behaves in windy conditions) and can be made man-carrying (see Volocopter, still in development, but they're on a good way).

The question that remains is how to control them, and what license do you need to ride in one? (I'm saying ride, since it's obviously not a heli, but something highly computer controlled)

As I posted earlier optionally manned and CASEVAC UAS are already in use. So far they have not been licensed commercially. (Boeing Littlebird for example and Lockheed's K-MAX-CASEVAC UAS. ) I would think that the licensing and safety regulation people will be putting these into the 'too difficult pile' for quite a while.

[bubbers44]

A very relevant article here from the UK perspective

Drones involved in near misses at UK airports - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35442130)


A catastrophic collision with a personal small drone might make a small dent in the wing leading edge much like hitting a bird. Let's worry about something a little more worth our concern.

[Mark in CA]

Here's something non-destructive about drones. Some people are apparently putting big money into drone racing. This video presents the organization's dream:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3886eVPR48

Here's another video of the reality of the first race:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1Srlx9bHsM

[Tourist]

I would think that the licensing and safety regulation people will be putting these into the 'too difficult pile' for quite a while.

I think the aviation side of things is just going to let the far larger automobile sector iron out the legal kinks first.

[PDR1]

A very relevant article here from the UK perspective

Drones involved in near misses at UK airports - BBC News



Hmmm...

So we have two airliners - one at 2,000 feet and the other at 4,000 feet "during take off". I'll defer to the bus-drivers on here, but would I be right in thinking that ya typical aerobus will be doing well over 200mph in that phase of flight? Let's call it 100m/sec.

To see an object and explicitly identify it as a "drone" you'd need to be within, what, 200m of it? Now I know airline pilots are living gods with all the omnipotence and omniscience that goes with it, and call me a cynic if you wish, but I have real trouble believing that in the two seconds between initial visibility and passing "within feet" even an airline pilot couldn't accurately identify the object which he/she believes went past the window. It could just have easily been a bird, a party balloon or the consequences of last night's crew-party in the hotel.

Once upon a time it was UFOs - now to pilots everything is a drone. Tell you what - fit a dashcam and let us all see what bit of airborne flotsam you're calling a drone this week...

PDR

[G-CPTN]

Stansted Airport plane came within four metres of crash with drone | Essex Chronicle (http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Stansted-Airport-plane-came-metres-crash-drone/story-28637659-detail/story.html)

[PDR1]

Another hawkeyed pilot - at 285mph (~130m/sec) the alleged drone must have been identifiable for no more than 1.5 seconds even if we assume it was spotted at the earliest opportunity.

So how can he/she have been sure it was a drone...?

:hmm:

PDR

[DaveReidUK]

Stansted Airport plane came within four metres of crash with drone | Essex Chronicle (http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Stansted-Airport-plane-came-metres-crash-drone/story-28637659-detail/story.html)

Within 50m, according to the Airprox report (though that's still pretty d*mn close).

Appears to have been a Ryanair flight.

[Basil]

Now I know airline pilots are living gods with all the omnipotence and omniscience that goes with it
Thank you for the compliment; we do try to live up to your expectations ;)

[FlightDetent]

There's a lot to be seen in a blink of an eye.

bJeCRk8FcOY&feature=youtu.be&t=1

[PDR1]

Thank you for the compliment; we do try to live up to your expectations

You're welcome!:)

yes, I'm taking a little bit of the mick, as they say. But do you accept the cause of my scepticism on this? I still haven't had a considered response on how such an accurate identification can so often be arrived at from such a short glimpse. All the more so in that last case as it turns out that the closest point of approach was 50m away...

PDR

[Mark in CA]

The Dutch National Police are attempting to train eagles to take down drones.

Dutch Police Training Eagles to Take Down Drones - IEEE Spectrum (http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/aerial-robots/dutch-police-training-eagles-to-take-down-drones)

[FlightDetent]

PDR1: I like your thinking, but come to a different conclusion. If they had been looking at the right direction, it is entirely possible.

FD.

Play around and stop the clip I embedded, with a watch at hand. 0,6 sec is plenty for MkI eyeball to recognize things.

[DroneDog]

The vast majority of purchased off the shelf drones will can not fly near airports, the four big manufacturers have implemented no fly zones, each drone carries a database of forbidden GPS co ordinates and the drone just won't enter that airspace.

There are still a few custom made machines that can.

[RAT 5]

Report on BBC news that Manchester airport has had infringements of its airspace by drones. It has asked operators to be more vigilant and stay clear. Wow.
Yet paragliders, parameters, sailplanes will all be penalised severely if they created the same offence.
I can almost guarantee that when there is the first mid-air collision there will be an all out hunt for the owner. Following that, successful or not, there will be a drive for registration so that owners can be identified.
Owners who operate sensibly & legally can not have any objection to registration when they purchase a drone, other than cost. Where it will be difficult to enforce is when people buy them via internet from an overseas supplier.
Given that we are in a proactive accident prevention environment I wonder why there is such a lackadasical response.
This is not a prohibition or even a restriction on drone operations; it's simply a means to identify those who act irresponsibly in a life threatening environment.

[DroneDog]

Agree, the UK / Europe needs a Drone registration programme, RF ID chips could be embedded in every new drone sold to trace ownership. Currently drone manufacturers can trace drones via serial numbers to customers/distributors.

Reckless flying - This is a accident waiting to happen, as I posted before the majority of bought "off the shelf" drones cant fly near airports, there is currently blocking software. Its the tiny number of custom built machines that can.

Perhaps if stiffer penalties were enforced on reckless drone flying along with those who feel its fun to laser aircraft.

[Tourist]

Yet paragliders, parameters, sailplanes will all be penalised severely if they created the same offence.


Perhaps because there is evidence (the evidence being that they have taken down aircraft or been taken down by aircraft) that the above are actually a threat to airliners?

Until a single shred of evidence is produced that small toy UAVs are a threat, then perhaps they should be left alone?

There are currently millions of untrained people flying quadcopters around the planet.
As far as I'm aware there is not one single case of confirmed collision yet, let alone a collision that caused life threatening damage on an airliner.

[LlamaFarmer]

I fail to see how registering drones will help in the majority of cases.


If it just flies around, causing a nuisance and causing aircraft to take avoiding action, then lands again in a field and disappears before it can be reported or found, how is that any easier to trace than unregistered drones.

Unless it has a unique tracking code that is transmitted at all times and can be detected by radar.

Hows about a Mode C transponder, so ATC with an SSR radar can advise aircraft if there is a danger, and TCAS can at least pick it up also.
And if people don't want to pay for the cost of that, then buy a smaller drone that has the controls limited to say 50 metres line of sight, like a remote control toy.

[hoss183]

Police 'ponder eagles to tackle drones' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35519470)

Interesting, and probably quite effective. Although more use in the quoted prison environment, than flying an eagle on airport approaches.

[glad rag]

They can't really be serious.

[Tourist]

Not sure why, but "she swallowed a spider to catch a fly" keeps running round my head......

[ZeBedie]

The animal rights people will have an opinion about training the eagle to get a face full of propellor.

[DroneDog]

Even if you succeed in jamming (and it can be done), the drone won't just fall out of the sky, it can continue on autopilot to complete its mission or return to its take off point depending on how you programme it. The applications to programme it can be found on smart phones tablets etc and are relatively easy to use.

[AndoniP]

The animal rights people will have an opinion about training the eagle to get a face full of propeller.

They were my thoughts as well. If the propellers keeping the drones up are externally mounted then the animal will probably be wounded, especially as most birds attack from above don't they?

[crazy council]

Messing with the GPS signal around the area you need to protect is probably the most effective cheapest way of of defending an area ( no good near airports though )

Make more seance for a wide blanket ban near any airfield without prior permission. ( 10 mile min )

I dont thing jamming them is feasible, and like the other poster said, most would just carry on to target. You have to mess with the GPS. and its not hard to do, i think Iran did this to nick that USA drone a few years ago.

[Tourist]

Messing with the GPS signal around the area you need to protect is probably the most effective cheapest way of of defending an area ( no good near airports though )

Make more seance for a wide blanket ban near any airfield without prior permission. ( 10 mile min )

I dont thing jamming them is feasible, and like the other poster said, most would just carry on to target. You have to mess with the GPS. and its not hard to do, i think Iran did this to nick that USA drone a few years ago.

I don't think you have any idea how big a deal it is to mess with GPS. Technically easy, but huge consequences.

So many things rely on it that it would never be authorised.
Shotguns would be a less contentious option than GPS jamming.

[G-CPTN]

The Law
Objective
Kite fliers must comply with any requirements of the law applicable to where they are flying.
Guidance
The European Communities Act 1972, Civil Aviation Act 1982 and the Airports Act 1986 allow the Civil Aviation Authority (working with the Ministry of Defence) to issue the Air Navigation Order, a Statutory Instrument, the latest of which is dated 2005. Combined with other Regulations, CAP 393 (with amendments to January 2008) sets out the law and rules that kite fliers are required to comply with.
The key points are:
• You must not fly a kite more than 30 metres (100’) above ground level within 5 kilometres (3 miles) of an airfield unless the CAA has given you specific authority to do so. You should avoid take off and landing flight paths.
• You must not fly a kite more than 60 metres (200’) above the ground at any other time unless permission has been obtained from the CAA and the certificate of such authority is available on site.
• You must obtain permission from the CAA before dropping objects such as teddy bears, sweets etc.
• You must avoid low flying aircraft such as police or rescue helicopters, microlight aircraft, hang-gliders and para-gliders.
You should also be aware of local byelaws which may restrict kite flying or related activities. These might say you must not fly a kite as to create a public nuisance which might include noise.

[cwatters]

Messing with the GPS signal around the area you need to protect is probably the most effective cheapest way of of defending area...

You cant possibly mess with gps around even a small percentage of potential targets and that won't work against drones flown manually anyway.The use of birds also assumes you know where and when the attack will occur in time to get a bird in place. Why do we assume that a terrorist use of a drone will be "sophisticated" rather than a crude manually flown attack? We don't expect them to use driverless cars to deliver car bombs.

[Mechta]

We don't expect them to use driverless cars to deliver car bombs.
Maybe they haven't yet, but there is no reason not to. The hardware to do it is available very cheaply. At the moment we automatically assume that terrorists will be religious fanatics not afraid of dying, but what about criminals wanting to do a major robbery who want to nobble police helicopters on the ground beforehand?

[MarcK]

I don't think you have any idea how big a deal it is to mess with GPS. Technically easy, but huge consequences.
All new GPS chips also receive and process GLONAS, so you now have two systems to defeat.

[Tourist]

All new GPS chips also receive and process GLONAS, so you now have two systems to defeat.

Still easy to do.
Jamming is easy.
Spoofing is trickier, especially with two systems....

[hoss183]

Still easy to do.
Jamming is easy.
Spoofing is trickier, especially with two systems....

And illegal and dangerous too. Also pointless for drones as they will just default to some other mode, possibly with loss of control causing even more danger.

Drones like laser pens and other items have appeared quickly, before the lumbering government had a chance to regulate. I suspect that licences, registration and mandatory geofences will be imposed in most nations, and that takes care of careless public. It leaves a small minority left to chase.

[crazy council]

Tourist is spot on here.

Its still easily doable, and you can confine the GPS spoofing to a small area if needed. You could possibly even target drones with a jamming signal/spoof signal with directional aerials,

problems
1. Hand flying a drone, without GPS, using iether video googles or eye site and aiming at a target is extremely hard, ( multiple variables get in the way )
2. Weight/power of rc drones/planes has some serious limitations

probably good ideas to implement

1. Licences for any airfraim/motor combination that can fly more than 100 meters from the user ( like a CBT for the air )
2. Blanket bans around airfields for 10 miles without permission from control tower
3. battery capacity/power to weight limits ( there is already weight limits, these need to be combined with power limits )

Number 3 and 2, would stop all accidental occurrences,

i made/built a full gps/waypoint Rc plane with autopilot and trimmings ( telemetry and video ) between 2006-2009 , before you could buy them on the hobby market.

[golfbananajam]

From the BBC website today

Drone near-misses prompt calls for plane strike research - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35699396)


Pilots are calling for research into what would happen if a drone hit an airliner, after 23 near-misses around UK airports in six months last year.
Reports from the UK Airprox Board reveal the incidents happened between 11 April and 4 October 2015.
In one incident a drone passed within 25m (82ft) of a Boeing 777 near London Heathrow Airport.
Pilots union Balpa wants the government and safety regulator to back research into how serious a strike could be.
The incident at Heathrow was one of 12 that were given an "A" rating by the independent board, meaning there was "a serious risk of collision". It is the most serious risk rating out of five.
Other incidents given the most serious rating include a drone coming within 20m (66ft) of a Embraer 170 jet on its approach to London City Airport above the Houses of Parliament on 13 September.

Much more in the actual article

[Fair_Weather_Flyer]

I was listening to Smooth Radio in the UK today. The report said that BALPA, are asking for urgent safety measures to be introduced due to an increase in aircraft having near misses with.......wait for it......trains. Trains, drones, yeah more or less the same thing.

[peekay4]

I read in China there are trains capable of reaching 16,627 ft MSL altitude. Be very afraid! :}

[GoldwingSpain]

I read in China there are trains capable of reaching 16,627 ft MSL altitude. Be very afraid! :}


:)

IN real terms it would be interesting to see the test of a 1kg plastic drone being hit by an aircraft travelling at 300knots weighing hundreds of tons.

[Squawk_ident]

From BEA today:


During the approach in downwind leg for runway 26L at an altitude of 5500 ft and a descent rate of about 1000 ft per minute, with a speed of 220 kt and heading east, the first officer ( FP) sees a drone in its 11 oclock. He disengaged the autopilot and makes a flexible resource while informing the captain of the presence of the drone. The captain saw the drone and estimates he spends about five meters below the left wing of the aircraft. The crew informed the ATC of the presence of the drone. The crew re-engages the autopilot and continues the approach.

No more information given.

The aircraft involved is the F-GKXT A320.


https://www.bea.aero/les-enquetes/les-evenements-notifies/detail/event/quasi-collision-avec-un-drone-en-approche-1/

It was a commercial flight between BCN and CDG.
From FR24 : ATOT/ALDT 0928/1108Z
AFR157J/AF1149

[Herod]

This could be an answer to the problem. SkyWall (http://openworksengineering.com/skywall)

[aerobelly]

From BEA today:

During the approach in downwind leg for runway 26L at an altitude of 5500 ft and a descent rate of about 1000 ft per minute, with a speed of 220 kt and heading east, the first officer ( FP) sees a drone in its 11 oclock. He disengaged the autopilot and makes a flexible resource while informing the captain of the presence of the drone. The captain saw the drone and estimates he spends about five meters below the left wing of the aircraft. The crew informed the ATC of the presence of the drone. The crew re-engages the autopilot and continues the approach.

A typical hobby drone is not at all easy to see at 100metres distance even if you know where it's supposed to be, and one capable of lifting 1kg of camera and telemetry isn't much easier mainly because it dispenses with pretty bodywork and is just a bare frame. 220kt is 113metres/sec. To identify the object and take the actions reported means astonishing reaction times.

I have a half share in one of each, and we are working on getting our licences to fly them commercially. Ground school and exams done, ops manual and flying tests (full test for each of us with each of the aircraft) to go.


a'

[G-CPTN]

This could be an answer to the problem. SkyWall (http://openworksengineering.com/skywall)
The criticism that I would make is the time taken to 'de-box' the weapon - it should be in a rack on the rear wall of the cab (or even mounted 'outside').

[ThankfulPAX]

This is in Dutch, so you might need Google translate to read it.

On a Dutch drone site, the posting says it all.


http://www.dronewatch.nl/2016/03/03/idioot-brengt-hobbydrone-tot-hoogte-van-34-km/

[ThankfulPAX]

This, posted on a site called Slashdot. I'd welcome a commercial pilot to pop over there and set the record straight. Slashdot is popular with tech savvy nerds. Who love drones. I was shocked to see posters being casual about a 777 sucking a drone into an engine.

http://m.slashdot.org/story/308149


Anonymous Coward an hour ago


Pilots have had to deal with in-air objects for decades. As both a pilot and a passenger I have avoided high performance weather balloon experiments, one time in particular was a reminder to pay attention as someone's looking-like 20+ lb payload was literally at our wing height, and 20 ft away.
Part of your job as pilot in command is to fly in and share the airspace.
Are there going to be flight/drone collisions? Yes, eventually. But planes, helicopters and balloons don't own the sky just because they were there first. A TCAS IV chipset might make a nice addition, but restricting a million plus drones to ensure a few thousand planes, that are already on the lookout, are safe? That's just stupid.

[D.M.]

That's precisely the kind of thing that gives everyone who has any sense of safety nightmares!

Where I fly model planes, the new rules in place mean I have to call the local tower to get permission (after logging the request on the national "airshare" web site).

I recently asked a busy controller if it was a PITA to be constantly called by model plane flyers - her response was that it was better to be slightly inconvenienced and know what is flying where, rather than not know what is flying anywhere...

[tomuchwork]

Unfortunately there are to many idiots around flying this copters/drones nowadays.

There are plenty of videos in the net proofing how high they can fly(and then crash back to earth because the battery ran empty on the way down), so it is very easy that they can endanger any aircraft.

I do commercial drone flying(certified by the authority) since 5 years now(sidejob to my real flying), but the regulations just keep growing and it makes it impossible(my opinion) for any certified operator to stay legal and still make money. Then are all the others that just do it black, sell the service for 50% of the price(easy if you put all in the pocket and do not need to pay anything to the aviation/tax authority).

I will pull out of this business this year because it is simply to dangerous and to annoying(most of the time the police swings by when we fly, so we have to do the "dance" everytime, show the license, get our id checked, blablabla, just because some guys do not know how to behave). Years ago people asked about drones, liked to look at it, nowadays the call the police if the see one flying in the city. Thanks to modern media and some reckless "pilots".

This things should have never been sold over the counter without any kind of registration(in some countries even bicycles are registered, why not drones?) so you could track people.

Well, DJI and Co are flooding the market with this things, I guess on some stage they will be just forbidden as it happened already in some countries. In the wrong hands this things are very dangerous.

[jolihokistix]

Forgive me if this is a repost.


Eagles trained to take down drones - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35750816)

[RAT 5]

Eagles trained to take down drones - BBC News

Cheaper than F15's. More stealthy too.

[Mark in CA]

Made by UK company OpenWorks, the bazooka will "help the police control the skies."


http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/03/SkyWall_4-980x653.jpg

SkyWall 100: An anti-drone bazooka | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/03/skywall-anti-drone-bazooka/)

[Ian W]

So skywall can get to **gasp** 300ft! and of course what happens to the net when it _doesn't_ catch the 'drone' on a windy day? So the airport puts out how many people to do this to cover 100 meters (that is slant range).

People thinking this is a good idea have never had to secure an airport. A modern airport boundary is from 8 to 20 miles long. So how many people with these 'skywalls' would you need? They would be hard put to protect a single house let alone an airport.

[Nige321]

I attended a multirotor event in Germany over the weekend. General consensus amongst distributors is that sales have peaked and are now showing steep downward trend.

Those that wanted a drone have bought one. Many of those are now either broken or sitting in the back of a cupboard...

Sales will continue, but one wonders if the peak of interest has passed...

[Tourist]

http://www.popsci.com/new-report-drone-risk-to-airplanes-is-miniscule?7Rv18zsWDz3kOTHZ.03

[172driver]

LH A380 vs drone at LAX:

Lufthansa jet and drone nearly collide near LAX - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-drone-near-miss-lax-20160318-story.html)

[Longtimer]

What bothers me is that some weight can be attached to the drone, so what if it was explosive ........ ???? for example:
Jane Jones, Work at professional drone manufacturer MMCUAV
1.4k Views
Many drones can only carry 3-10kg, while we MMC has designed one type drone which can carry 25KG weight.
Below is the details of it:
http://mmcuav.en.alibaba.com/product/60308436614-802048477/MC6_1600_drone_uav_for_six_rotary_wing_drone_professional_fo r_Aerial_Photography_and_Crop_Sprayer.html
I wonder who can purchase and use this one?

[172driver]

I wonder who can purchase and use this one?


Aerial photography amongst other uses. The issue is, that with this kind of payload, these drones only have a very short endurance, typically a few minutes. The link says 60 mins, but unless these guys have made the breakthrough of the century in battery technology, that's BS, unless empty (and I doubt even that). Btw, there are much bigger ones out there, used for aerial cinematography. However, these are flown by pros, normally in a controlled environment (e.g. film set). The problem are the plonkers who fly at 5k ft in the approach to LAX :ugh:

[Connetts]

Drone smashes through office window, hits man | IOL (http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/western-cape/drone-smashes-through-office-window-hits-man-2006991)

Drone smashes through office window, hits man

[zerotohero]

Good footage. Surprised having sound on a DJI Phantom as pretty sure the standard is just video as all you can hear is the props. Still made the video more interesting.

You should be able to track the take off point from the data on the SD card to find the pilot or at least his preferred take off point ready for when he gets his next one up in the air.

[andycba]

Looks like they found the pilot and he's going to be having words with the SA CAA

Drone crashes through window and hits man on the head | Metro News (http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/10/out-of-control-drone-crashes-through-window-and-hits-office-worker-5807330/)

[Tech Guy]

Many drones can only carry 3-10kg, while we MMC has designed one type drone which can carry 25KG weight.
Below is the details of it:
http://mmcuav.en.alibaba.com/product...p_Sprayer.html (http://mmcuav.en.alibaba.com/product/60308436614-802048477/MC6_1600_drone_uav_for_six_rotary_wing_drone_professional_fo r_Aerial_Photography_and_Crop_Sprayer.html)
I wonder who can purchase and use this one?

Some Finnish farmers have developed one to carry a chainsaw.:ooh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Viwwetf0gU

[Herod]

Nice to see that it was brought down by a balloon, justice!

[Sober Lark]

A drone flying at an altitude of more than 2,000 metres came close to an Aer Lingus plane as it approached Paris's Charles de Gaulle airport yesterday, airport sources said this morning.

The incident comes after a British Airways plane nearing London's Heathrow Airport on Sunday is believed to have hit a drone before it landed safely.

In yesterday’s incident, the Aer Lingus pilot saw the drone pass about 150m from the right wing of the Airbus A320 plane, one of the sources said.

After landing, the pilot informed air traffic police about the incident, which happened as the plane was flying at 2,300 metres and was around 50km from the airport on its journey from Dublin.

It is not known how many passengers were on the plane.

In February, the pilot of an Air France Airbus A320 was forced to make an emergency manoeuvre to avoid a drone.

The drone passed five metres under the plane's left wing as it was at 1,600m altitude on its approach to Charles de Gaulle.

Shop-bought micro-drones are not allowed to fly above 150m altitude in France, although some can reach several thousand metres.


Drone reportedly flew close to Aer Lingus plane - RTÉ News (http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0421/783341-drone-aer-lingus-paris/)

[ahdguy]

7500 FT? Doesn't sound like a typical shop purchased drone... most of them would have run out of battery before getting that height..

[procede]

Nope, this idiot was kind enough to post his evidence of his 3.4 km (11000 ft) altitude flight just outside the CTR of Rotterdam Airport:

*****************nUnR

[Jetscream 32]

Newly issued drone recognition chart by the CAA :8:8

[mickjoebill]

The report says the pilot informed ATC and police after he landed.

Virtues v hassles of making a call immediately to ATC so as to warn following aircraft?

[Hotel Tango]

Virtues v hassles of making a call immediately to ATC so as to warn following aircraft?

Might have been preoccupied with all the work involved in landing at a major airport, let alone getting into a non standard R/T exchange with a French controller busy vectoring multiple aircraft.

[Heli-phile]

It used to be foil kiddies balloons whipping past our windscreens at FL160 being called UFO's. Looks like they have been renamed "Drone" :cool:

[Heli-phile]

'Drone' Geo-fencing trials at LHR proving successful. Plans for nationwide rollout will start at Sainsbury's car park Hounslow.

[ChrisJ800]

Newly issued drone recognition chart by the CAA :8:8
Jetscream you need to add plastic bags to your pictures of 'Drones' see Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/drone-believed-to-have-hit-british-airways-flight-may-have-been/)

[Jetscream 32]

Doh.... back to the drawing board! Surely there would of been impact marks of some description, crikey the times Ive had a bird strike even small birds.... and you definitely know for sure!! However point being even if it wasn't this time.... it won't be long!

[harrryw]

iYouu have to add the fire ballloons in Thailand every major festival especially in Loy Kratong. I am sure two loops of welding iron about 40 cm radius will go straight through an engine with no problem.

[Del Prado]

BA flight unlikely to have been hit by a drone.

http://http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36159117

[Tourist]

Perhaps, just perhaps, some of the drone near misses were in fact not drones as well.....?

Perhaps idiots flying in control zones is not as common as some on here suggest?

[Basil]

It's easy to make a recognition error.

I can hold my hand up for seeing what I thought looked like a microlight plunging into the Clyde Estuary one evening. I reported the event and a search was made by the local lifeboat.
All they could find was a large deflated balloon :O

Would I report such a sighting again? Yes, of course I would; next time I may be correct.

[Benbecula]

Well, my company has just patented a directional jamming device which jams GPS, video link and control input. You aim it at the drone, select what you want to jam and pull the trigger.
The aim is to make the pilot feel like he has lost control over his device. When you release the trigger, control comes back and what should happen is the pilot will land the drone thinking something is wrong. If not, the action is repeated until he gets the message.
This equipment was successfully used during New Year. A total of 41 drones were made to go away during the course of 30 minutes during the fireworks display at Taipei 101.
The jamming device can disable a drone up to 1.2 km away, and as it is directional and has a beam of around 10 degrees, it does not interfere with other 2.4 or 5.8 equipment unless the equipment is pointed directly at it. Other GPS units are also not effected.

Forget nets.

[PDR1]

Patent number?

[Benbecula]

No way. Not on a public forum.

But here are some pictures FYI


http://i68.tinypic.com/huljro.jpg

http://i68.tinypic.com/2v9dsg4.jpg

http://i67.tinypic.com/10eg6sy.jpg

[crazy council]

it would affect purchased drones, but not all diy ones, you would need to add magnetic interference as well. It would not be to hard to make a drone attacking drone to bring any drones down.

The problem with designing any system to combat drones is, its quite easy to design around. Whereas, drone killing drones, is relatively easy and cheap,

for around £ 500, it not hard to knock together a very complex set of sensors and control board that could get a drone from position a to position b and do whatever there, that could not be jammed or confused easily.

but, it would be easy to build sensor arrays to detect any drones around airports and flight paths, and easy to target a drone with a drone and guarantee to bring it down.

[Benbecula]

The main concern is commercially available drones though, bought by idiots. Anyone who can build a drone is probably intelligent enough not to fly by airports unless their sole purpose is to do just that. If they are determined to get through airport security, they will and they will build a drone specifically designed for that.

My jammer can be used for any airport, prison, border agency, coast guard, police service etc...and as stated in the initial post, is designed against most commercially available drones.

It can also be adapted to block 3g, wifi and 2.4g using omni directional antennas. This is for public order issues. Although I don't agree with the police being able to do this, some agencies in the US - land of freedom - have expressed a interest...

Morals or money? Hmmm...

[crazy council]

Its a good bit of kit,

my post was a bit sharp, i was specifically on about airports. I could see plenty of use for them as security devices at events as well as prisions, and usefull for celebrity's . Good idea.

[Benbecula]

It's OK. I didn't take offence! We're actually working on a drone vs drone solution, so we'll see how that goes.

:-)

Have a good evening!

[PDR1]

No way. Not on a public forum.


Why not - patents are a public record. It certainly looks sexy, but I'd be interested to read the patent to see how you "jam GPS" from ground level, how you manage to develop sufficient power to "jam" 5.8GHz signals at 1.2km and how you legally "jam" the 2.4GHz signals without contravening the regulations on duty cycles and power levels. I'm also intrigued to know how these 10-degree beamwidth omnidirectional antennas work.

And then there's the minor issue of contravening the ANO (in the UK, and the equivalent laws which say the same thing in the colonies) by recklessly endangering an air vehicle in flight.

Is it that you have a hankering for prison food or something?



PS - does it also detect IEDs and corporate tax evasion?

[Benbecula]

Actually, the equipment can be modified to accept an omni-directional aerial.
The small issues about the ANO regarding endangering an aircraft in flight - well, the device which uses a net is also technically in contravention.

In the wider world (ie Turkey and more lawless and corrupt countries like the US) this is not an issue. If government agencies are interested, I'm sure that the equipment can be modified to fit the current regulations, or that ammendments can be made. There is already a device manufactured in the US which is effective to 300 metres.
Once the units are out of my hands I don't care what happens to them. I live in Taiwan, and the sale is through third parties anyway. No prison food for me. It's not illegal to manufacture or sell them here.


To answer your question about jamming GPS at ground level - if you are directly beneath the drone, then it is not effective. However, from an angle, it works like a dream.

In any case, the whole design is mainly a proof of concept showing that the technology is there and can be utilized if required.
I'm a pilot turned engineer and my company specializes in developing and maintaining aircraft systems, railway asset protection, calibration equipment and signalling systems.
This jamming device is just a side project, the development of which will probably lead to other things, although to date, 68 units have already been sold. :ok:

[ChrisJ800]

I think drone control is frequency hopping 2.4ghz so any jammer would also be jamming wifi, cordless phones and other devices also legally able to use 2.4ghz. And if you jam GPS frequencies again plenty of other legitimate users with GPS in their phones and cars would be upset! Even a basic drone if jammed should default to either fly Return to Home or fly autonomously via preset waypoints. Of course if GPS was also jammed it would then fly I would guess on a default heading such as North or could just be random pattern. If you jammed it and it then crashed and hit someone or a plane then who would be responsible? Hope you have good insurance cover!

[PDR1]

But it's a really nice sexy gun-shaped thing with a designer matt-black finish and some seriously cool-looking antenna-shaped pods and a smart black backpack - presumably the backpack can also take it's designers schoolbooks and sandwiches, so it's good VFM.

Still no patent number then. Perhaps the backpack has pockets for the puppet to keep his socks in...

[airsound]

The 'i' newspaper in UK has a report headlined ‘Concerning’ increase in near-misses between aircraft and drones, with much of it sourced from Freedom of Information requests.

There's also a list of 16 incidents since 2014 where there was a "serious risk of collision".

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/pilots-concerned-rapid-increase-near-misses-aircraft-drones/



(https://inews.co.uk/essentials/pilots-concerned-rapid-increase-near-misses-aircraft-drones/)

[Jetscream 32]

So this was last week when the HoftS arrived in Southampton:

The DJI P4 took off from the old wharf south of Ocean Village Marina under FPV which is exactly 3 nm from the runway threshold of runway 02 at EGHI on the extended centreline.

So he flew for over a mile under the hood which is BLOS (beyond line of sight) = illegal as no observer and looks to be well over 400 AGL in some of the frames judging by height of cruise vessel which is 210 ft high

If there is any Flybe jockeys seeing this they will not be very impressed as this is EXACTLY in the final descent profile which starts at 5.6D from the airfield.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqarhago7VY

[Herod]

Well at least the authorities know his name.

[Mark in CA]

The Dutch are exploring the use of trained eagles to snatch drones out of the sky.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/world/europe/drones-eagles.html

[chromakey]

Well, my company has just patented a directional jamming device which jams GPS, video link and control input. This would be highly illegal under US Federal Law and FCC regulation and possibly others besides, and it should be everywhere. Jamming of radio signals is not something that should ever be done in peacetime or by civilians, cut and dry.

[hoss183]

British drone-freezing ray gets US airports trial - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36425879)

A UK-developed system capable of jamming signals to small drones is to be trialled by the US aviation authority.

Seems to me though that it depends what the drone is programmed to do when it loses control signal, could be quite unpredictable. If its 'hover'it doesnt help much. If 'land' possibly. If 'RTB' then bonus, it goes back to the perp.

And to answer chromonkey - The key point is directional. Firing a tight beam up into the sky, would be very unlikely to affect anyone. And exceptions can and are made to FCC and other regulations for specific cases. I suggest that downing a dangerous drone, in the hands of federal authorities (police, security) would get passed.

[PDR1]

Seems to me though that it depends what the drone is programmed to do when it loses control signal, could be quite unpredictable. If its 'hover'it doesnt help much. If 'land' possibly. If 'RTB' then bonus, it goes back to the perp.


Uh-huh. And once it has moved a few yards (let alone any distance along the RTB path, which could be many miles long) it's out of the beam of the jammer and safely back under the owner's control.

Of course you'd better hope that this drone doesn't have antenna-diversity, and that the jammer's antennas are made of that special unobtainium alloy that eliminated side-lobes, or that the operator has the courtesy to only operate it in places where the drone death-ray can get a clean shot at it without impinging on any aircraft, offices, hospitals, schools, homes etc who might suffer problems from being subjected to illegal high-powered jamming signals in the 2.4GHz band.

[3FG]

The FAA blurb (https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=85532)seems to emphasize detection, and says nothing about jamming.

[Tech Guy]

The fact is has 4 Blighter radars on it will put the price into the "extremely scary" category.

[OldLurker]

Well, my company has just patented a directional jamming device which jams GPS, video link and control input
This would be highly illegal under US Federal Law and FCC regulation and possibly others besides, and it should be everywhere. Jamming of radio signals is not something that should ever be done in peacetime or by civilians, cut and dry.

But it wouldn't be civilians using such a device - it'd be 'law enforcement', who seem to be immune from US Federal Law and FCC regulation and possibly others beside. "War On Terra" trumps everything.

[zerotohero]

@ Jetscream 32

The DJI drones have geo fencing in the software. If won't fly if its in restricted airspace or it may limit the altitude to stay out of the lower tiers if its above you.

DJI have this locked down pretty well so can't see an issue in that video for that reason.

[DaveReidUK]

Based on the information on their website, DJI's geofencing covers a minute proportion of the world's restricted airspace.

[Viper 7]

Drone sighting near Ottawa airport prompts scrambling of 2 CF-18 fighter jets - Ottawa - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/drone-ottawa-airport-cf18s-fighters-scrambled-1.3621633)

[DaveReidUK]

The scrambled fighter jets were not able to locate the droneNow there's a surprise.

[ATC Watcher]

A F-18 against a drone ? That will certainly work well. :E
No helicopters avail in that part of Canada ?

[mosteo]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/08/worlds-first-passenger-drone-testing-ehang-nevada

"Tom Wilczek, Goed’s aerospace and defence specialist said: “The State of Nevada, through NIAS, will help guide Ehang through the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) regulatory process with the ultimate goal of achieving safe flight.”"

A new beginning?

[Hotel Tango]

It will take a new generation to accept this mode of travel, probably purely on the basis of economics.

[sandos]

Those are some nice meat slicers! They need bladeguards for that thing. Think small child, dog, whatever, running in their way...

Also, 4 motors+props? What about redundancy? 5 Seems a much smarter number, easy to keep flying with 4. Keeping flying with 3 seems hard, although it is theoretically possible. One of them would have to be reversible though...

[WeeJeem]

Also, 4 motors+props? What about redundancy? 5 Seems a much smarter number, easy to keep flying with 4. Keeping flying with 3 seems hard, although it is theoretically possible. One of them would have to be reversible though...

It's actually got 8 motors and eight props - one can just make out the lower set of props in the picture.

When it was announced at CES at the beginning of the year, the company was apparently saying that it was already fully functional, and that it would be commercially available later in the year, but YMMV (especially with a battery life of 23min and a max speed of 60mph :ok:).

[Tourist]

https://www.ted.com/talks/raffaello_d_andrea_the_astounding_athletic_power_of_quadcopt ers?language=en#t-348220

This should allay concerns about controllability with failures. The control method when down to two props would not be much fun for a pax though....

[alainthailande]

Drone brings Dubai Airport to a halt for an hour - Khaleej Times (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/nation/dubai/dubai-airport-closed-for-over-one-hour)
My apologies if this has been posted elsewhere already.
I thought that it would fit this thread well.

[Mark in CA]

The “drone school” builds on Europe’s worldwide lead in giving public groups and companies relatively free rein to experiment with unmanned aircraft. If everything goes as planned, the project’s backers hope government agencies in Europe and farther afield can piggyback on the experiences, helping to transform drones from recreational toys to lifesaving tools.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/technology/europe-emergency-drones.html

[Mark in CA]

The Federal Aviation Administration’s new commercial drone rules allow a broad range of businesses to use drones under 55 pounds, but with several restrictions: The drones must be operated by a pilot who has passed a written test and is at least 16 years old. And drones can be flown only below 400 feet, during the day and at least five miles away from airports.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/technology/drone-rules-commercial-use-faa.html

[mickjoebill]

Permissions - BB Stratus Aerial Imagery (http://www.bbstratus.com/permissions/)

We are the ONLY UK company able to fly in built up areas as close as 10 meters distance from the public and property not under our control and to a height of 600ft above ground level. Oh, and we can do this both day and night!

[Mark in CA]

From the Washington Post:

​http://wpo.st/ppOO2

[cwatters]

It's interesting to do some ball park numbers on how many delivery drones we could see flying around. Lets take Amazon alone.. Some reports say that Amazon warehouses are processing a few 10's of orders per second. Other reports suggest that 80-90% of these are below 5kg so could potentially be delivered by a drone. That means we could be looking at say 10-20 drone flights per second from their warehouses. That's a potential of about 1,300,000 flights per day per warehouse. That's a staggering number and probably wrong but it is based on todays figures, allows nothing for growth and is just Amazons potential let alone other companies.

[CRayner]

This is a much misunderstood business IMHO. Unless there are unpublicised developments in range and duration of current technology the use of drones for deliveries can only be for a tiny minority of all orders. Currently the duration of multi rotors is measured in minutes not hours, and their speed in tens of knots. Admittedly fixed wing planes last much longer and go faster, but they require decent sized fields to take off and land. Not many customers will be willing to have their goods delivered by parachute. Landing and taking of again at the point of delivery poses obvious dangers which would be unacceptable to commerce and regulators alike.

In order for decent sized payloads to be carried the vehicle needs to be correspondingly larger, and much more expensive. Currently such aircraft are limited by law to a ceiling of 400ft agl in most jurisdictions where they are likely to be used. The temptation posed by large fairly slow noisy machines to amateur marksmen with shotguns is obvious. The likely attrition from this and other causes would render insurance against loss costly.

I do not expect any serious exploitation of unmanned aerial delivery systems commercially for a very long time. If ever. As a means of securing cheap publicity for Amazon and others they seem to be a sure fire winner.

[RR22]

Really surprised by the amount falling for Amazon's free publicity tool,
Drone delivery,except in the most constrained circumstances?
LOL

[Denti]

From DHLs press release (http://www.dhl.com/en/press/releases/releases_2016/all/parcel_ecommerce/successful_trial_integration_dhl_parcelcopter_logistics_chai n.html) they did their tests with a VTOL drone with a swivel wing design, straight flight was basically the same as a fixed wing one.

Doesn't look exactly small either. However, i do not think that commercial operators are the main danger as they want to continue using them, it is private users that simply do not know about anything and just want to try to get cool videos or pictures with their new toy. And some of those toys can be quite heavy too.

[CRayner]

Hmmm. A bit like a model Bell Osprey. Still only got a range of 12kms. No use for deliveries outside fairly densely populated areas. I get they cost a lot too.

[Maoraigh1]

"No use for deliveries outside fairly densely populated areas."
Launched from and recovered to van, to deliver from blacktop road to rural property on poor quality track, might be possible.

[CRayner]

Possible certainly, economic, hardly. Send van out, dispatch drone, driver and van hang around til it comes back. Can't see it working.

[cwatters]

Drone making regular deliveries in Rwanda. Paid per delivery. Fixed wing, 93 mile range..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37646474

[DaveReidUK]

Zipline - The Future of Healthcare is Out for Delivery (http://flyzipline.com/product/)

[golfbananajam]

Just appeared on the BBC website

Amazon files patent for flying warehouse

Amazon files patent for flying warehouse - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38458867)

excerpts:

Amazon has filed a patent for massive flying warehouses equipped with fleets of drones that deliver goods to key locations.
Carried by an airship, the warehouses would visit places Amazon expects demand for certain goods to boom.
It says one use could be near sporting events or festivals where they would sell food or souvenirs to spectators.
The patent also envisages a series of support vehicles that would be used to restock the flying structures

Also, it said, the drones descending from the AFCs - which would cruise and hover at altitudes up to 45,000ft (14,000m) - would use almost no power as they glided down to make deliveries.

[DaveReidUK]

The patent was filed more than two years ago, so I think we'd have heard by now if it was going to lead to anything.

[G-CPTN]

the drones descending from the AFCs would use almost no power as they glided down to make deliveries.
But energy was needed to get the goods up to the 'warehouse'.

[CRayner]

Zipline - The Future of Healthcare is Out for Delivery (http://flyzipline.com/product/)
Yes, this is great for that purpose, delivery of fairly robust urgently needed medical supplies in open country with few metalled roads. Not so great for delivery of delicate heavy consumer goods in densely populated areas, which is where most Amazon customers live.

Have just been looking at the videos of deliveries by drone in Cambridgeshire. Clearly the system works for delivery of small robust items in this flat and largely treeless part of the world. Doubt it'd work so well in London and the Home Counties.

[DaveReidUK]

But energy was needed to get the goods up to the 'warehouse'.

Yes, they haven't been able to reinvent the laws of physics. :O

But the point was that the drones would be in flight idle for most of their mission, with a corresponding increase in range. The goods (and the drones themselves) would be transported up to the AFC on board smaller shuttle airships.

[Carbon Bootprint]

An Evening Standard article reports a total of 13 high-risk airprox incidents involving planes inbound or outbound at London airports last year: 10 at LHR, two at LCY and one at STN. These were "category-A" incidents, with a “serious risk of collision.”

There were an additional nine incidents with Heathrow flights where safety “may have been compromised” among a total of 36 incidents involving passenger planes over London in 2016.

Overall, the number of drone incidents involving Heathrow planes nearly quadrupled from seven in 2015 to 26 last year, according to reports by the UK Airprox Board.

Complete article here (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/revealed-13-near-misses-with-drones-at-london-airports-last-year-a3449196.html)

[DaveReidUK]

The Standard, as usual, has jumped the gun - thr UKAB data only covers the period up to early September.

So, for example, the quoted total of 10 Category A events that involved Heathrow traffic will almost certainly have risen by the end of the year.

[crewmeal]

Not only commercial aircraft, but the military are also concerned.

RAF Shawbury warning over drone gifts « Shropshire Star (http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2016/12/26/raf-shawbury-warning-over-drone-gifts/)

[Mr A Tis]

Being reported another drone near miss.
This time an easyJet A319 on finals at LPL John Lennon Airport.
Pilot reported as same height as aircraft.
Plane preparing to land in Liverpool has close encounter with a drone - Liverpool Echo (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/plane-preparing-land-liverpool-close-12560328)

[Falck]

The authorities in Germany are very worried about these drones. And now the RC modelflying pilot scene is hurt by a couple of idiots flying their drones near airports and airplanes.

A hight restriction of only 30 meters. That is low for RC model flying.

It is like a couple of football hooligans spoiling it all for the real supporters.

But the authorities don't see the difference. So there is a lobby from the RC modelflying world to express their worries.

These hobbyists should be left alone. The drone idiot should be charged with "attempted murder" and prosecuted in that way. We don't need more restrictions in the hobby scene. These people are not the problem.

[Del Prado]

A couple of observations from the video:
Who 'released' the RT and did the pilots and controller give their permission?

Seems a bit late in the approach to be asking for precise details, would the flight deck prefer to give this info after landing?

[Hotel Tango]

Just a small personal observation, a little distracting to start requesting more details as the aircraft is on short final I would have thought? Couldn't it have waited until they were down?

[Basil]

DP & HT, agreed. Thank you for that. I had a ground tour in ATC in the RAF.
Recollect, many years ago, mentioning intrusive ATC to Vancouver.
They were not pleased (They even had a whinge to Seattle); my captain was not pleased but, after decades of reflection, I have no doubt that I was right to make the point.
As is said in the mil:
'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept'
I dislike confrontation but sometimes you just have to do it.

[armagnac2010]

La vidéo de l'avion de chasse frôlant un drone dans l'Allier - Moulins (03000) - La Montagne (http://www.lamontagne.fr/moulins/faits-divers/2017/02/05/la-video-de-l-avion-de-chasse-frolant-un-drone-dans-l-allier_12271674.html)

The story is that a land owner was filming his property located in central France, discovering later his drone was underflown by 2 Rafale.

[A320ECAM]

I will post this when the accident occurs but why is the industry so reactive and not proactive?

I imagine a drone will bring down an airliner and all of the people will say in disbelief "how did this happen?
Well how about we regulate drones heavily now and perhaps save some lives?

[helimutt]

Regulating drones now? The people who fly drones responsibly already take note of the Drone Code etc. The people who will cause a 'possible' incident are those who won't follow the Drone Code, or any rules for that matter. Irresponsible flying creates panic in the media. Still, I note not a single aircraft anywhere at this time (that I can find) has been hit by a drone.

Here's an example of something: You own 50 acres of land and have some livestock. The weather is bad, you use a drone to go and quickly check to make sure all livestock is alive and well. You are at no more than 400'. You're out at 500m. It's your land. You have actually put a notam out to inform the aviation community about the operation for up to 1 hour. So, a local ppl holder has a small microlight in a nearby village strip, decides to get airborne, flies over your land at 400' and flies into the drone (UAV), and ends up having to make a forced landing in your field. So, who is to blame, or more importantly which way do you think the media would sway? I know what would happen. :ugh:

Stop with the media sensationalism. Yes be pro-active but please, let's keep it sensible. The drone industry is likely to be a multi-billion$$$ industry in 2017. It's a fact of life they aren't going away anytime soon.

Yes, use geofencing systems. (we already have this)
Yes, register anything bigger than say 500g at Point of Purchase (this would make people think twice that their details are recorded already)
Don't add more bureaucracy to the already overloaded CAA (uk anyway) its taking months for them to turn around renewal of PfCO's.

[A320ECAM]

I don't care if it's going to be a billion dollar industry. Idiots across the country and globe are flying these things near airports like crazy people. It will not be fair or justifiable that an airliner full of innocent people is taken down by some moron flying a drone on the approach path at LHR is it? Look at the Malaysian 777? What idiot in route-planning thought it was a good idea to allow a route over an active warzone? Regulation is in order I believe.

[PDR1]

Only if it will achieve anything. Is is being continually pointed out - those people whom regulation would influence are ALREADY doing the right things and posing no danger to any other equally responsible aviator (I'm excluding the nutters you find in all fields of endevour who do things like buzz livestock at 100' in a microlight etc).

The people who might be a risk, eg those doing the long-distance BVR flights, won't give a dingo's kidney what some "regulation" says - they know the chances of them getting caught is pretty close to zero. They're also not necessarily the people who are buying these things as a commercial package. There is a huge hobby industry selling the components and full kits for home assembly, using flight control modules which can have whatever "restrictions" the builder doesn't like switched out. These suppliers are located in places that won't care about any regulation making it illegal to ship the stuff to the UK. There are websites full of open-source code for these things and lots of enthusiasts to assist in using/modifying it. So regulation is unlikely to achieve anything other than annoy legitimate (and non-risk) hobby RC flyers.

Airliners are demonstrably at far greater risk from wild birds than from drones, so if you want to do something USEFUL (rather than just bleating) perhaps you could start a campaign to have all woild birds fitted with kevlar tethers and 200lb concrete hold-downs. After all, it's the risk that's the issue and we can objectively show that this is a far, far greater risk.

[RAT 5]

Are drones now being put in the same risk box a lasers? Too much trouble and you can't catch the guys anyway.

[PDR1]

No, because there genuinely IS a potential hazard from drones...

[sxjack]

Still, I note not a single aircraft anywhere at this time (that I can find) has been hit by a drone.


There have been a few, most recently a couple of impacts with model gliders. See the table on page 7 of the final report of EASA's Drone Collision Task Force (https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/TF%20Drone%20Collision_Report%20for%20Publication%20(005).pd f).

[golfbananajam]

from the BBC today

Dubai announces passenger drone plans - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38967235)

Dubai announces passenger drone plans

A drone that can carry people will begin "regular operations" in Dubai from July, the head of the city's Roads and Transportation Agency has announced at the World Government Summit.
The Chinese model eHang 184 has already had test flights, said Matt al-Tayer.
The drone can carry one passenger weighing up to 100 kg (220 pounds) and has a 30 minute flight time.
The passenger uses a touch screen to select a destination. There are no other controls inside the craft.
It is "auto-piloted" by a command centre, according to a video released by the government agency.
It has reported speeds of up to 100 miles per hour (160 kilometres per hour) and can fly 31 miles (50km) on a single battery charge.

Dr Steve Wright, senior lecturer in avionics and aircraft systems at the University of the West of England, told the BBC that safety would have to be paramount. Dr Wright added that he would not be volunteering for an early flight. "I'd have to be taken on board kicking and screaming."


more in the linked article

[Ian W]

from the BBC today

Dubai announces passenger drone plans - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38967235)

Dubai announces passenger drone plans

A drone that can carry people will begin "regular operations" in Dubai from July, the head of the city's Roads and Transportation Agency has announced at the World Government Summit.
The Chinese model eHang 184 has already had test flights, said Matt al-Tayer.
The drone can carry one passenger weighing up to 100 kg (220 pounds) and has a 30 minute flight time.
The passenger uses a touch screen to select a destination. There are no other controls inside the craft.
It is "auto-piloted" by a command centre, according to a video released by the government agency.
It has reported speeds of up to 100 miles per hour (160 kilometres per hour) and can fly 31 miles (50km) on a single battery charge.

Dr Steve Wright, senior lecturer in avionics and aircraft systems at the University of the West of England, told the BBC that safety would have to be paramount. Dr Wright added that he would not be volunteering for an early flight. "I'd have to be taken on board kicking and screaming."


more in the linked article
Not exactly a new idea - but perhaps first in commercial use

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/littlebirdhelicopter/

Diamond DA42 Centaur Optionally Piloted Aircraft (OPA) - Airforce Technology (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/diamond-da42-centaur-optionally-piloted-aircraft-opa/)

There are likely to be many more of these in the future.

[3wheels]

There have been a few, most recently a couple of impacts with model gliders. See the table on page 7 of the final report of EASA's Drone Collision Task Force (https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/TF%20Drone%20Collision_Report%20for%20Publication%20(005).pd f)

That's NOT as I read it. The EASA report you quote on pages 6 and 7 of your link gives details of 5 drone collisions with light aircraft, not model gliders. One was FATAL.

The circumstances of the FATAL COLLISION with a drone are on page 6 of your link. Here for ease of reference ...
https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/TF%20Drone%20Collision_Report%20for%20Publication%20(005).pd f

[3wheels]

Still, I note not a single aircraft anywhere at this time (that I can find) has been hit by a drone.

This paper from EASA lists 5 drone collisions with aircraft. One was a double fatality. See pages 6 and 7.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/TF%20Drone%20Collision_Report%20for%20Publication%20(005).pd f

[DaveReidUK]

One was a double fatality.

Though hardly the archetypal "drone collision".

A motorglider strayed into a R/C model aircraft flying area and encountered a model glider towing combo. In the resulting collision the wing of the Grob was severed leading to a loss of control.

https://www.bfu-web.de/DE/Publikationen/Untersuchungsberichte/1997/Bericht_97_3X306-1-2.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

[3wheels]

Dave, you are quite right I have re-read the EASA report on page 6 of the link (I can't read the German report) and is does indeed say the Grob hit a model.
Quite why they say on the table on page 7 it collided with a dingo drone, I have no idea. I now also have no idea why they mentioned it at all.
Sorry for the misleading post...

[JammedStab]

From another thread....

Now the haters will have to find another incident to blame on drones.

Found one already.

"Occurrence No.: A17F0018 Occurrence Type: INCIDENT REPORTABLE
Class: CLASS 5 Reportable Type: COLLISION (x)
Date: 2017-01-20 Time: 23:00:00 UTC
Region of
Responsibility:
HEAD OFFICE
Location: 22.00 Nautical miles SE From SCEL - Arturo Merino Benítez
International Airport - Santiago de Chile
Country: CHILE Province:
Ground Injuries: Fatal: 0 Minor: 0
Serious: 0 Unknown: 0
---------- Aircraft 1 ----------
Registration: C-FIGR Operator: VIH HELICOPTERS LTD
Manufacturer: KAMOV Operator Type: COMMERCIAL
Model: KA-32A11BC CARS Sub Part: 702 - AERIAL WORK
Injuries: Fatal: 0 Minor: 0
Serious: 0 None: 2
Unknown: 0
Occurrence Summary:
C-FIGR, a Kamov KA-32A11BC aircraft operated by VIH Helicopters, was conducting forest fire suppression operations in Chile with 2 pilots on board.

As the aircraft was returning after a water drop, the crew heard a loud bang. There were no warning lights and no mechanical abnormalities were noted. The flight crew initially determined that they experienced a bird strike and returned to base where the helicopter landed with no further events.

Maintenance personnel performed an inspection and found minor damage to the front avionics door. No evidence of a bird strike could be found, however a tear in the skin of the helicopter, as opposed to a dent, was identified. Additionally, evidence consistent with a plastic smear on the paint as well as damage to the door’s lower hinge was found. The operator suspects a collision with a hard object similar to a drone."

[ATC Watcher]

Seen the damage, if indeed it was one , must have been a small drone or even a model, the question is what altitude was he helicopter ?

[msjh]

Well, indeed.

I used to fly a small drone. I was never closer than several miles from the nearest airport and I kept well within CAA rules (below 400', never more than 400 yards away).

Yet on a couple of occasions a helicopter came by at about 200'. In each case I descended rapidly but I can't be sure that if the helicopter had been going straight at my drone I would have been out of the way in time.

Eventually I sold the drone. I got some great aerial footage but it wasn't worth the risk of a collision.

[noflynomore]

What altitude was the helicopter my ****! It was fire-fighting!

This is precisely the reason that those who operate legally at low level are so worried about the damn things. They can pop up anywhere and as msjh said when a bona-fide low level aircraft appears there is little time to react. Helicopters and light aircraft operate into and out of remote sites, fly legally below 200ft on some exemptions (power lines for instance, the regular 200ft (!!??? Hmm...) Chinook low-level route by my house) and way below 500 on many others - and don't need an exemption to ground level on open countryside anyway - so drones are a potential threat.
Drone operators and legislators blindly imagining that a height separation solves the problem are severely deluding themselves, as shown by the extraordinarily smug question asked by ATC watcher. Helicopters and light aircraft operate perfectly legally in the airspace below 500ft and it is neither their responsibility nor within their capability to avoid drones. The only one who can do that is the drone operator - and there seems precious little evidence that even the drone guidelines, lax as they are, are even known by many operators (many/most of whom are amateurs of course) let alone adhered to. Go look on youtube to see some of the idiotic things people are proudly boasting of doing with them!
If drones were hard-wired to no more than 100 or 150 ft I'd have thought they'd achieve most of what they need to do and remain pretty safe. 400ft seems vastly excessive to me in view of legitimate pre-existig aviation requirements.

I fear it is only a matter of time before this is backed up by a body count.

[ATC Watcher]

noflynomore : reading the small report helps, they were not fire fighting but returning to the airport : Location: 22.00 Nautical miles SE From SCEL - Arturo Merino BenítezInternational Airport - Santiago de Chile. [...] As the aircraft was returning after a water drop,

I do not know the rules in Chile , but in Europe , it would 500 ft minimum. hence the Drone regulation. We have had recently in the UK an airprox filed by a drone owner , when an helicopter came at 100-200ft right above where he was working ( legally) .
Remember a drone owner do not want his expensive toy to be destroyed either...

[blind pew]

The regs might say 500 ft but who in the military in france obeys that!
Many moons ago I did a microlight license at an airfield notified to the dgac...had an airmiss with a pair of mirages ...one of which we heard...the other who knows.
My brother was instructing a customer with a small basic model aircraft trainer...two pairs of super etandards flew over the field ..one pair below the model. Again the airfield registered with the dgac.
They have taken out a few microlights over the years.
I should add that they use the area for basic cross country training...rather foolish to plan over airfields imho.
On a similar subject of low flying military watched a Tornado cross the Thames from the london eye south to north ...way below the 500ft rule.

[ATC Watcher]

blind pew : but who in the military in France obeys that!
Well in France ( and some other EU countries) it is quite well regulated. The low level corridors are on the maps with numbers and the respective activation times are on the military Notams that anyone wanted to fly in them should consult before ( or ask the FIS) .
. ULM ( ultra lights) "airfields" are just like private landing strips. They are registered but are not protected against low levels military in the corridors. Golden rule we all do : Check the Notams before using the airspace.

[PDR1]

If drones were hard-wired to no more than 100 or 150 ft I'd have thought they'd achieve most of what they need to do and remain pretty safe. 400ft seems vastly excessive to me in view of legitimate pre-existig aviation requirements.

I fear it is only a matter of time before this is backed up by a body count.

Well if that's how you feel then perhaps we should observe that there is a clear conflict of requirements, and the drone operators are probably more numerous that the helicopters and light aircraft. As we live in a democracy the majority's interests should come first, so obviously the time has come to prohibit aircraft from flying below (say) 1500 feet AGL everywhere outside the airfields controlled airspaces.

If that's the way you want it I'm sure it could be arranged...

[blind pew]

ATC watcher...the regulation in height here is 500ft...and certainly five years ago there were none in our region marked on charts as I used to fly transponder equipped gliders and work military ATC.
By the way I got the military limit from a mate who was ex naval fighter pilot whilst we were sipping golden nectar on my terrace watching a couple of guys fly past around 300ft at 300 knots...

[angelorange]

Doesn't matter what the device/species involved in the impact - it can be deadly serious.

If "operated" by a person on the ground it must be line of sight well away from aerodromes & known low level corridors. A white drone against a light grey/white sky makes conspicuity difficult for the operator let alone a pilot travellling over 100kts.

All single engine flying requires engine-out training towards a successful forced landing (PFL). Whilst pilots must obey the 500' rule for civilian flying that can be 500' horizontally to ensure the pilot can demonstrate correct PFL technique.

As for demanding the defenders of democracy not to fly below 1500'.................. WTF!

It is the personal level of risk that matters. A drone operator is very unlikely to die in a drone collision (unless it falls on his head from 500'), a pilot and passengers hit by a drone risk death.

[sxjack]

That's NOT as I read it. The EASA report you quote on pages 6 and 7 of your link gives details of 5 drone collisions with light aircraft, not model gliders.

Model gliders are drones. The authorities use the term drone as a synonym for unmanned aircraft.

The things in the table in the EASA report that stand out for me are the absence of multirotors and the fact that all the manned aircraft are small private planes.

[electrotor]

ATC Watcher, do you have more details of the airprox you referred to?

[OldLurker]

Perhaps this one (March 2016):
www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/Airprox Report 2016038.pdf (http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/Airprox Report 2016038.pdf)
or maybe another ...
Interesting that in the March incident, the helicopter involved couldn't be traced or identified despite being on radar for at least part of its flight.

[DaveReidUK]

I'm confused - wasn't it a reference to an airprox in Chile ?

[OldLurker]

@DaveReidUK:
I, and I think electrotor, meant to refer to ATC Watcher's post #687, above:We have had recently in the UK an airprox filed by a drone owner, when an helicopter came at 100-200ft right above where he was working (legally).

[DaveReidUK]

Ah, I'm with you now. :\

I agree, that one appears to be the only UKAB airprox report originated by a civilian drone operator in recent years.

[ATC Watcher]

Yes that is the one I was referring to.
The (recent) conclusions of the UK airprox board on that one were :

...it would have been more prudent for the helicopter to operate at a higher altitude due to the possibility of encountering other airspace users up to 400ft above ground level, including drones, paragliders, paramotors and hang-gliders soaring in the region.
There was even a possibility of military aircraft at or below 250ft.

[JammedStab]

C-FFJM, a Perimeter Aviation LP Fairchild SA-227-AC aircraft was conducting flight PAG204 from Gods Narrows, MB (CYGO) to Winnipeg/James Armstrong Richardson Intl, (CYWG). While at approximately 2000 ft. asl, on a 4 nm final approach to Runway 31 at CTWG, the aircraft passed approximately 100 feet below an unknown airborne object. The object was octagonal in shape and bright red in colour. The flight crew did not make an evasive manoeuvre but reported the event to ATC. The aircraft landed without further incident.

[JammedStab]

C-GGOF, a de Havilland DHC-8-402 aircraft operated by Jazz Aviation LP, was conducting flight
JZA584 from Calgary Intl, AB (CYYC) to Saskatoon/John G. Diefenbaker Intl, SK (CYXE). The
aircraft was just below 1000 ft agl, on a 3 nm final approach to Runway 27 with clearance to land.
The flight crew observed a red and white drone travelling eastward. The drone passed directly
overhead within 50 feet of their altitude. The flight crew reported the incident to ATC. ATC advised
that there was known UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) activity within the area, but conflicts were not
expected. The NOTAM references an unrelated UAV operation south of the airport.

[Mark in CA]

"That quadcopter that cost 200 bucks from Amazon.com did not stand a chance against a Patriot," he said.

Ya think?

Small drone 'shot with Patriot missile' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39277940)

[G-CPTN]

Drones could be carrying shuttlecock bombs:-

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/03/16/12/3E534C6B00000578-4319902-A_drone_carrying_two_grenades_flying_in_a_test_flight_by_Ira qi_f-a-3_1489668711785.jpg

[JammedStab]

Time to ban as many as possible,

"One of the primary issues surrounding the proliferation of drones is their interference with other aircraft.
A new report from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) confirms that while more drones are being spotted by pilots of other aircraft, there have not yet been any collisions with planes or helicopters.
If this trend continues, it could present issues down the road as enterprise drone usage grows, especially once logistics providers try to launch drone delivery services.
To a degree, this is a natural phenomenon that’s the result of heightened enterprise drone usage. In a report last year, BI Intelligence analyzed the emerging enterprise drone space and identified several prominent use cases driving this adoption. The fact that more pilots are spotting drones in the skies is likely a result of this phenomenon, though it could also point to negligence on the part of enterprises and consumers who use the drones.
But while not currently an issue, a high-profile collision could cause the FAA to rethink its drone delivery policies. The agency is mandated by Congress to release regulations on commercial drone delivery services sometime next year. However, if the number of drones continues to grow and a significant crash were to occur, this could prompt the FAA to move to restrict drone usage ahead of the much-anticipated legalization of a commercial drone delivery service.
Drones turned the corner in 2015 to become a popular consumer device, while a framework for regulation that legitimizes drones in the US began to take shape. Technological and regulatory barriers still exist to further drone adoption.
Drone manufacturers and software providers are quickly developing technologies like geo-fencing and collision avoidance that will make flying drones safer. The accelerating pace of drone adoption is also pushing governments to create new regulations that balance safety and innovation.
Safer technology and better regulation will open up new applications for drones in the commercial sector, including drone delivery programs like Amazon’s Prime Air and Google’s Project Wing initiatives.
BI Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service, has compiled a detailed drones report that forecasts sales revenues for consumer, enterprise, and military drones. It also projects the growth of drone shipments for consumers and enterprises.
The report details several of world’s major drone suppliers and examines trends in drone adoption among several leading industries. Finally, it examines the regulatory landscape in several markets and explains how technologies like obstacle avoidance and drone-to-drone communications will impact drone adoption.
Here are some of the key takeaways from the report:
We project revenues from drones sales to top $12 billion in 2021, up from just over $8 billion last year.
Shipments of consumer drones will more than quadruple over the next five years, fueled by increasing price competition and new technologies that make flying drones easier for beginners.
Growth in the enterprise sector will outpace the consumer sector in both shipments and revenues as regulations open up new use cases in the US and EU, the two biggest potential markets for enterprise drones.
Technologies like geo-fencing and collision avoidance will make flying drones safer and make regulators feel more comfortable with larger numbers of drones taking to the skies.
Right now FAA regulations have limited commercial drones to a select few industries and applications like aerial surveying in the agriculture, mining, and oil and gas sectors.
The military sector will continue to lead all other sectors in drone spending during our forecast period thanks to the high cost of military drones and the growing number of countries seeking to acquire them.
In full, the report:
Compares drone adoption across the consumer, enterprise, and government sectors.
Breaks down drone regulations across several key markets and explains how they’ve impacted adoption.
Discusses popular use cases for drones in the enterprise sector, as well as nascent use case that are on the rise.
Analyzes how different drone manufacturers are trying to differentiate their offerings with better hardware and software components.
Explains how drone manufacturers are quickly enabling autonomous flight in their products that will be a major boon for drone adoption."

FAA report shows pilots are seeing more drones - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/faa-report-shows-pilots-are-seeing-more-drones-2017-2)

[beamender99]

Passenger jet approaching Heathrow in drone 'near-miss' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39457371)

.....It happened on 11 November 2016, ....a near-miss with a drone at 10,000ft as it approached Heathrow Airport.

It was one of four near misses between aircraft and drones in the latest UKAB monthly report, and brings the total in the past 12 months to 59.

[4Greens]

April 1st Telegraph reports a 10,000ft near miss near Heathrow. It aint no fool.

[DaveReidUK]

How High Can A Drone Fly? Enthusiast Flies Drone To 11,000 Feet (http://www.pprune.org/www.popsci.com/hobbyist-flies-drone-to-11000-feet)

Reportedly an off-the-shelf DJI Phantom with the firmware modified in this instance, so it's not out of the question.

[biscuit74]

Quoting 'JammedStab' - " Time to ban as many as possible"

The snag with that approach is that, unless the authorities act sensibly, perfectly law abiding radio control model fliers will be penalised and may have a quite harmless hobby destroyed.

EASA is already struggling to come up with rules that allow reasonable differentiation between R/C models and drones. The legal types seem to be having difficulty, as so often. Common sense isn't allowed I suppose.

For me the really annoying thing about this is that it looks like being a, possibly terminal, repeat of the last nonsense in UK. Way back in the Eighties, people started illegally importing and using CB radios. Those worked in the same frequency band as radio control models, so caused interference & crashes. The response of authority was to tell R/C modellers to buy new radios, changing frequency band, at considerable cost. They did nothing about the illegal CBs.
The modellers mostly had had paid up radio licences. Funnily enough, few continued to pay for those !

I'm not sure what to suggest. Maybe insist that a licence is shown before purchase of any model with GPS and/or artificial stability or 'autopilot' functions?

[horizon flyer]

On Approach to LCY yesterday morning, just past the QE2 Bridge / Dartford crossing I was idly taking in the views of London when some type of blended-wing aircraft flew right past us in the other direction (west to east), passing under the wing, I almost cacked myself. It had a wingspan of 40-50cm I guess. I thought my eyes were deceiving me until I heard a guy a few rows back saying "Did you see that". I pointed it out to the cabin crew when de-boarding to which the reply was “oh thanks for letting me know”.


The description matches a delta wing drone that I think costs about £350 pounds. was looking at one in a shop in Devizes a couple of days ago.

[horizon flyer]

On a TV programme the other night, about a journalist returning to he's home city in Iraq with parts still held by IS, one big concern was IS drones dropping grenades on civilians. The children stayed inside to play and everyone watched the sky when outside. Shows what can be done with a drone.

[Mudman]

Flight crew spots drone flying near Ottawa airport
Air Canada Express airliner landed safely Tuesday without incident, Transport Canada investigates

CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/drone-reported-ottawa-airport-1.4075251)

Flight crew spots drone flying near Ottawa airport - Ottawa - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/drone-reported-ottawa-airport-1.4075251)

[JammedStab]

C-GWSV, a Boeing 737-800 aircraft operated by WestJet, was conducting flight WJA1233 from Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, FL (KFLL) to Toronto/Lester B. Pearson Intl, ON (CYYZ). During the climb through 10 800 feet after departure from KFLL, a rotary UAV passed to the right of the aircraft at approximately 100 feet above. The UAV appeared to have something hanging off of it. The flight crew notified ATC.

[JammedStab]

Disaster is inevitable. Ban drones...

"C-FMLV, a Boeing 767-300 aircraft operated by Air Canada rouge, was conducting a flight from Montreal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau Intl, QC (CYUL) to Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, FL (KFLL). While on the left downwind leg for Runway 10L at KFLL, the flight crew observed and reported a grey UAV that passed over the left wing by approximately 10 feet. The flight crew did not visually acquire the UAV until effective avoidance maneuver was no longer possible. There was a second encounter with a silver UAV when the aircraft was established on the LOC RWY 10L at about 2200 feet between PIONN (IF) and NOVAE (FAF)."

[RR22]

A complete ban on flight within X radius of an airport,
and above a certain height should stop all but criminals from being a nuisance?

A blanket ban will not deter the mentally unbalanced
anyway and penalize a very worthy hobby into the bargain.

I don't believe that delivery drones are more than an extremely limited publicity device, so any legit users like farmers or power companies could get a permit, but a straightforward proximity based rule should at least be tried,
all these little denied options begin to accrue.

IMO:8

[tubby linton]

One was spotted in the Gatwick zone recently at 3000ft.

[DaveReidUK]

straightforward proximity based rule should at least be tried,

Most, if not all, consumer drones already come with geo-fencing.

[Flying Binghi]

New mini attack bomb drone from Turkey: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5c9_1494271715




.

[Piltdown Man]

Blanket bans are a complete illusion of security, after all they legally exist at the moment but it's clear they don't work. The real culprits will take no notice of any pathetic laws like this, only draconian, totally over the top retribution will have any effect. The most effective measure might be to educate the general public that people who fly drones close to airports are the same people who will kill your mother, brother, father etc. when they get it wrong. Let peer pressure do its job, like with drink driving. It is now acceptable to call Plod to have a look at someone who appears under the influence. Education, carrot and stick in the correct proportions.

[Toruk Macto]

http://m.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2094266/over-240-flights-affected-10000-travellers-stranded-after-drones

Central China over the weekend

[JammedStab]

50,000 dollar fine minimum for drone flying within certain areas or above certain altitudes. Assets seized to comply if cash is not available. Of course, I will be criticized but those criticizing will be silent and hidden the day a lot of people in an airliner die.

And it will happen. You heard it here first(or almost first).

[sxjack]

EASA NPA 2017-05 "Introduction of a regulatory framework for the operation of drones — Unmanned aircraft system operations in the open and specific category" has been published -

https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/notices-of-proposed-amendment/npa-2017-05

[omnis]

There are reasonable solutions, at least toward the legally inclined users. Take a listen between 22.30 and 30:00; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4kLHT02M1Y

You may also want to recognize the future utility of more modern air navigation systems when the line between drones and RPT becomes grey.

[neilki]

LGA ATIS reporting a drone at 1000' 2 miles south the field last night. Landing the Expressway Visual 31. Lost in the sea of Manhattan lights last night, but they're out there...

[keezy]

Most of us who fly drones respect the 400 ft max altitude and proximity to airports rules which could only be violated in most drones by turning off the GPS mode not allowing the drone to fly in no fly zones. New rules will not affect the few who don't respect any rules anyway. We need penalties for those violating present rules that will help reduce violations. After a full career flying airliners I have never had an occasional, maybe four bird strikes, cause any damage. I don't think a recreational drone is any more a threat than a large bird. Sully probably wishes he had just sucked up one illegal drone that day he landed in the Hudson river.

[JammedStab]

C-GGOK, a de Havilland DHC-8-402 aircraft operated by Jazz Aviation Lp, was conducting flight JZA8975 from Montreal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau Intl, QC (CYUL) to Ottawa/MacDonald-Cartier Intl, ON (CYOW). During the final approach to Runway 07 at 1500 feet AGL, the flight crew briefly observed an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) at their 11 o’clock position, approximately 4.2 nautical miles from the threshold of the runway. The pilot flying made a small roll input as an evasive maneuver and the UAV passed just under the left wing of the aircraft. There was no damage to the aircraft, and no reported injuries to the occupants.

[Mark in CA]

A British prison has become the world's first to use a new system designed to stop drones flying over perimeter walls to drop contraband into jails.

British prison is first to use 'disruptor' to create drone-proof 'shield' around jail (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/16/british-prison-first-use-disruptor-create-drone-proof-shield/)

[ChrisJ800]

So just change the failsafe setting of the drone to keep going to a pre defined waypoint instead of Return to Home and this technology is defeated.

[Bearcat]

Twice in one week I hear of unauthorised drone activity at major airports....firstly at JFK some clown operating a UAV close to CRI VOR with 31L departures and then last night a SAS nearly clobbered one on departure 28L ex SFO. They called it close to ATC operating at circa 500'. These people endangering aircraft I trust are subject to the full rigours of the law and deserve jail for such reckless activity.

[aterpster]

Twice in one week I hear of unauthorised drone activity at major airports....firstly at JFK some clown operating a UAV close to CRI VOR with 31L departures and then last night a SAS nearly clobbered one on departure 28L ex SFO. They called it close to ATC operating at circa 500'. These people endangering aircraft I trust are subject to the full rigours of the law and deserve jail for such reckless activity.

Going to get harder. An appeals court just ruled the hobby drones don't have to be registered. See attached.

[The Ancient Geek]

Just another craze, eventually they will go the way of hula hoops, CB radios, pogo sticks, etc etc.
It usually takes about a year, there are already far fewer on offer in shops.

[Station_Calling]

Just another craze, eventually they will go the way of hula hoops, CB radios, pogo sticks, etc etc.

Totally disagree. Their growth is exponential and as capabilities and payloads increase, so does their desire, coupled with a lowering of price making them even more available.

They are a real problem, and are here to stay so the relevant authorities need to wake up and develop a strategy to mitigate them.

[Mark in CA]

The Trump administration is asking Congress to give the federal government sweeping powers to track, hack and destroy any type of drone over domestic soil with a new exception to laws governing surveillance, computer privacy and aircraft protection, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/us/politics/drone-surveillance-policy.html?_r=0

A link to the 10-page draft and summary of the legislation is included in the article. See the section on "Covered Events."

[Momoe]

Drones have the potential to cause serious damage, up to how much for one engine rebuild?

Money talks, so why not 'dissuade' ILLEGAL drone operators by downing drones in no-fly areas? There are already several options and I'm certain the military have a few more that aren't in the public domain.

Another less dramatic method would be to assign an encrypted unique identifier to each drone/transmitter combo which has to be registered. (Like the MAC for IP devices). Admittedly, this could be circumvented or spoofed but it would reduce the problem.

[diddy1234]

DJI (one of the biggest 'drone' makers) will shortly be providing an update to the software only allowing users that have registered with them the ability to fly.

Some people are already moaning about big brother controlling things but I don't have an issue with it.

I brought a 'drone' last weekend and think it's brilliant but then I do observe the rules.
One interesting aspect is that all flight data is logged and sync'd to them.
I can view previous flights and it overlays on google earth where and when i have flown. this could be a great defence if someone claims I had been flying where I shouldn't.

Also DJI has a known list / map of no fly zones and apparently will not let the 'drone' take off if it's in one of these zones.

Of course this does not stop any idiot who is determined to fly one near planes but it does reduce the chances of these events happening.

Other 'drone' makers may follow suit.
anyone building there own 'drone' would fall outside of these restrictions though

Of course I have no desire to go and fly near an aircraft. it's taken me long enough to get my own drone so i have no desire to loose it

[DaveReidUK]

Money talks, so why not 'dissuade' ILLEGAL drone operators by downing drones in no-fly areas?

Hmmm. A drone flies illegally over an airport so you bring it hurtling to the ground.

Let's have a think about that ...

[gizmo71]

Just noticed an EasyJet diverted into Southend - looking on their flight status it says "We're very sorry that your flight has diverted to Southend because of a drone flying around Gatwick. We plan to fly you to Gatwick soon. We're very sorry for this inconvenience."

[llondel]

BBC has an article coming together on it (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40476264).

[scr1]

The EZY866 INV-LGW has diverted to STN as well

[davidjpowell]

Assuming that it is a drone, and that it was flying where it should not be... a bloody stupid thing to be doing.

But there does some to be an element of 'blame the drone' going on at present. Some of the claims of Drones at 10,000 feet and above are stretching credibility..

I assume this will be far lower though.

[G-CPTN]

Why don't they mobilise the Typhoons and shoot it down?

[EcamSurprise]

But there does some to be an element of 'blame the drone' going on at present.

I'm guessing you haven't whizzed passed one on the approach then?

As for higher altitude:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNHThfQFi3g & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7_PN4gum1A and those are no special drones. I doubt they are up as high as they say they are but it is still higher than one might think!

[davidjpowell]

Most (all) consumer drones would have been working hard at max power to get to that altitude (for those that can). And they will have no endurance left at all. Basically turning into an expensive falling stone.

The enterprise drones that have longer endurance cost into five figures. Lot of money to risk, not to mention CAA approvals.

That's why I'm sceptical.

[davidjpowell]

I'm guessing you haven't whizzed passed one on the approach then?

As for higher altitude:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNHThfQFi3g & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7_PN4gum1A and those are no special drones. I doubt they are up as high as they say they are but it is still higher than one might think!

I'm at the other end... PfCO holder. You might catch me flying near an airport - but I'll be within the regs and not putting aircraft at risk.

[EcamSurprise]

Interesting to have your perspective on it then!

I'm all for those who operate them sensibly and within the rules but, having had one encounter with a drone at about 1000ft, I can say that the issue is real and is a threat of sorts. Personally I think modern aircraft engines should be tested at full thrust and throwing a drone down it but I suppose a frozen chicken would still win.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I'm amazed that someone in telecomms at the airport hasn't thought of transmitting jamming signals on the drone frequencies within, say, 5nm of the airfield.

[Fostex]

The problem with that particular strategy is that jamming the frequencies on which the drones operate (2.4GHz and 5.8Ghz) would be disruptive on many other systems within the airfield.

[Papalazarou]

I trust Approach and Tower have a non knee-jerk response procedure following pilot reports of drones around Gatwick?

[czarnajama]

I'm amazed that someone in telecomms at the airport hasn't thought of transmitting jamming signals on the drone frequencies within, say, 5nm of the airfield.

That would involve jamming all sorts of other devices in the area, because modern RC systems use spread spectrum (typically at 2.4 GHz, at lower frequencies for longer ranges up to 100 km). What is needed is an inexpensive transponder (e.g. uAvionix Ping200S ADS-B/Mode S Transponder) which all aircraft and secondary radars within some decent distance can pick up, just as AIS does for surface vessels. Of course, that doesn't in any way justify flying drones near airports, but this sort of technology should resolve the problems of flying remotely piloted aircraft in all appropriate airspace. The technology for UAVs is remarkably powerful and inexpensive, giving small electric craft an operational radius of about 100km, with full video ("first person view") and flight instrument data seen by the pilot.