Drones threatening commercial a/c? [Archive]

777fly

30th Oct 2014, 14:20

The advent of the drone, currently small expensive and of limited performance, is just the thin end of a potentially very big and dangerous wedge. Just look at the exponential expansion in mobile phone capability to see what can happen and Amazon, for example, are already looking at load carrying drones. Strict regulation is needed NOW to limit the weight, altitude and range of these devices and their operation should strictly licenced.
Like others I can see the threat to commercial aircraft of a bomb laden drone hovering on the glidepath, invisible in cloud or at night. What about the threat to General Aviation? Light aircraft operate mainly in the altitude range achievable by drone devices and the consequences of a collision with one are even more likely to have a serious or catastrophic effect than on a large commercial aircraft.
I would like to see drone operations restricted to a maximum of 250ft agl, day only, with a max weight of half a kilo. Operation should only be allowed to licenced operators and not within 3 miles radius of any airfield or licenced strip. Like a virus, these things are out there now and must be controlled before something seriously bad happens.

Slatye

30th Oct 2014, 14:45

777fly - the problem is, how do you even start enforcing that? I can go to HobbyKing right now and get all the parts for a 2kg drone for somewhere around the $200 mark. So can anyone else. Even if the idiots knew that they needed a license (which they wouldn't, because they never have any communication with the CASA/CAA/FAA/EASA at all) they'd ignore it and fly anyway.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of model aircraft pilots are responsible. They fly under 400ft, keep the vehicle within a few hundred metres (because it's hard to see otherwise), and keep a watch out for any traffic that might be in the area.

The people flying drones around full-size aircraft are idiots, and the thing about idiots is that they don't pay a whole lot of attention to anything (like laws, common sense, airliners, crowds of people, etc). Realistically, it'd be nice to have some major penalties that actually get applied (so that people see the potential consequences) but that means finding the pilot - which is again a very difficult thing to do.

cwatters

30th Oct 2014, 15:13

The vast majority of "drones" sold in stores are essentially radio controlled model aircraft - there are very few autonomous drones. There are quite strict rules from the CAA on how and where model aircraft can be flown. For example most people flying them in their garden will be breaking the rules on proximity to buildings.

Basic Principles | Aircraft | Operations and Safety (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pageid=11185)

Article 166 of the ANO 2009 (CAP 393: Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations | Publications | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/cap393)) includes specific regulations for small unmanned aircraft and Article 167 of the ANO 2009 includes additional regulations for small unmanned aircraft that are 'equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition'. In summary, they prohibit unmanned aircraft from flying in congested areas, flying close to people or property, flying for aerial work purposes or flying beyond visual line of sight unless permission has been given by the CAA.

See also CAP722 Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK
Airspace – Guidance

CAP 722: Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace - Guidance | Publications | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=415)

I think it would help if retailers of drones were required to put a summary of the CAA rules in with the product.

Ian W

30th Oct 2014, 15:41

cwatters
Unfortunately, at the average drunken party on the Thames at Richmond, full of 'hooray Henry's' with a great deal more money than sense - it will be a great laugh to fly Marmaduke's new £5000 toy see if they can see into people's back gardens - then see how fast it can go or how high it can go..... what's an extended centre line? We are MILES from Heathrow...

And they wouldn't know an Air Navigation Order if it bit their backsides.

Unfortunately, whether we like it or not someone in an aircraft is going to hit one of these; and I don't think the regulators in Europe or the USA have a handle on how to deal with the problem.

Shift1986

30th Oct 2014, 22:47

Jammers can be installed in the airports to disrupt the control on all major frequencies used in remote controlled models, but you can still program a drone to fly to a preset GPS waypoint autonomously. As a r/c model enthusiast, i dont see a solution to this problem. If one wanted, he could build a drone capable of seriously damaging an a/c fly it right into a landing a/c, and he would only need a month or a couple months of setup and training so the fact that this hasnt happened yet is just due to terrorists being lazy and narrow-minded.

Dysonsphere

30th Oct 2014, 23:25

Yes the problem is I know you know but the average punter has no idea as has been said before untill someone gets one in an engine nothing will be done.

M.Mouse

30th Oct 2014, 23:31

The big difference with modern multi-rotor UAVs is that unlike a conventional model helicopter or model aircraft they can be flown with ease because they are electronically stabilised by inbuilt electronic gyros and with GPS installed will hold position as soon as the controls are released. Therefore, anybody with the money to purchase one, or the bits and the skill to build one, can then fly it with no training whatsoever.

I own a six rotor UAV equipped for high definition filming. It weighs around 8 kgs. with 12" carbon fibre propellers which are like razors. I also happened to have attended the relevant ground school, passed the written exam, taken the flying test so now hold a BNUC-S and CAA permit for aerial work. To get that I also had to write an operations manual which is akin to that for operating a full size aircraft. All told around £10,000 has been spent but it is used for commercial aerial film work.

I am restricted to line of sight operations which is generally accepted as 400' vertically and 500m horizontally from where I am standing. I am also subject to numerous other (sensible) restrictions regarding how close I can fly to people, buildings, etc., etc.

Unfortunately the widespread availability and cheapness of UAVs means that idiots can have a field day. Someone is going to be seriously hurt or worse and then there will be a major clampdown. I just hope that those of us who take the operation of a UAV seriously will escape whatever draconian legislation ensues.

I am sure it is only a matter of time before a terrorist gets in on the act.

FlamantRose

31st Oct 2014, 02:14

During this month it has been reported that 7 of our nuclear power plants have been overflown by various unknown drones of different sizes.
Sept sites nucléaires d'Electricité de France (EDF) ont été survolés par des drones, de nuit ou très tôt le matin. Le premier a été la centrale de Creys-Malville (Isère) en cours de déconstruction, le 5 octobre.
Les six autres ont été « visités » dans la semaine du 13 au 20 octobre, certains à plusieurs reprises : Blayais (Gironde) le 13, Nogent-sur-Seine (Aube) le 13 et le 19, Cattenom (Moselle) le 14, Chooz (Ardennes) et Gravelines (Nord) le 19, Le Bugey (Ain) le 19 et le 20.
Sur la seule journée du dimanche 19 octobre, ce sont donc quatre installations très éloignées les unes des autres – Le Bugey, Chooz, Gravelines et Nogent-sur-Seine – qui ont été ciblées. En revanche, EDF dément l'information de Greenpeace selon laquelle les centrales de Fessenheim (Haut-Rhin) et du Tricastin (Drôme et Vaucluse) auraient été elles aussi survolées.

What's cooking ???

Les mystérieux drones qui ont survolé sept centrales nucléaires en France (http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2014/10/29/edf-porte-plainte-apres-le-survol-de-sept-centrales-par-des-drones_4514729_3244.html)

Out Of Trim

31st Oct 2014, 11:16

I read recently, that Sussex Police at Gatwick have obtained an expensive Drone which they intend to fly during incidents or accidents and indeed during training in and around the Airport!

Crowded Skies in the future!

airship

31st Oct 2014, 12:34

More about the French drones cited by FlamantRose above from the BBC here (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29831897): Air force spokesman Col Jean-Pascal Breton said all the drones involved were small-sized and commercially available and because of their size they were not considered a threat.
On French TV news yesterday evening, a French air-force spokesman also mentionned that "the drones were not detectable by military radar", only by visual observation...?!

The possibilities of who is behind these French drones are almost endless: Al-Qaeda or some other terrorist organisation; hackers trying to discover and eavesdrop on wireless networks operating at the power stations; Google map street view etc.

My own opinion is that it is Amazon.com, experimenting with their drone delivery service in a "controlled-airspace" where all other flying objects should normally NOT be found...?! :ok:

wiggy

31st Oct 2014, 12:43

airship

The possibilities of who is behind these French drones are almost endless: Al-Qaeda or some other terrorist organisation; hackers trying to discover and eavesdrop on wireless networks operating at the power stations; Google map street view etc.

Given the going's on with the Siven's barrage at the moment it came as no surprise that French lunchtime TV yesterday had the likes of Greenpeace and/or one of the more militant environmental groups in it's list of usual suspects..as you say the list of possibilities is endless..

Barrage de Sivens - LaDépêche.fr (http://www.ladepeche.fr/actu/economie/energie-environnement/barrage-de-sivens/)

Bill Harris

31st Oct 2014, 13:30

Slatye

31st Oct 2014, 14:27

Jammers can be installed in the airports to disrupt the control on all major frequencies used in remote controlled models, but you can still program a drone to fly to a preset GPS waypoint autonomously. I'm not sure that you could get away with jamming the 2.4GHz band. Wifi operates at 2.4GHz too, and I suspect that there'd be plenty of lawsuits if an airport decided to disable all 2.4GHz equipment within 10km (or whatever distance is appropriate).

I wonder whether there's another way to "shoot down" a drone. Maybe a highly targeted beam on both 2.4GHz (control) and 1575MHz (GPS) to make the drone completely unflyable - although that relies on being able to detect and target the drone quickly.

Mr Britt

31st Oct 2014, 14:50

How about training falcons to intercept them? I saw a video where a drone was downed quite easily by a bird recently.

Interested Passenger

31st Oct 2014, 15:01

In what way are these drones more of a risk than conventional remote control planes and helicopters? Is it just the ease of use and stability from the 4 or more rotors?

My experience with a r/c helicopter was that with a lot of patience (indoors, no wind) you may get somewhere near to your target. Outside with weather, moving quickly to intercept an aircraft would have been impossible (for me and my kit)

Oh and a personal moan calling it London Southend Airport just so the Orange ones can claim they fly to the capital.... It's not even in Southend:ugh:

darkroomsource

31st Oct 2014, 15:14

The new(ish) quadcopters require almost no skill whatsoever. When compared to a r/c helicopter you could say zero skill. When compared to an r/c plane, you could say 1/100th of the skill.

Basically they will fly by themselves. You simply use the joysticks to move them from one place to another. You can even (with some models) give them GPS coordinates and they will go there by themselves.

So line of sight is not a requirement to keep the thing "under control", or even to get it where you want.

And you can get this for less than £100.

dagenham

1st Nov 2014, 00:02

with respect the above is not close to the truth

1. you can buy quadcopter for less than 100 pounds and they will not do all this as above, in fact they are not going to be able to fly at any distance to bother aircraft

2. Drones that you can programme GPS into and they fly themselves are illegal in most countries as you have to have control and line of sight according to the air navigation order. Those that don't come under this are operated by USAF / RAF / A de la air

3. There is a lot of hysteria about this - most chinese RC handsets will not even get to half a mile let alone further.

4. The quads are easy to fly but the orientation issue remains and they are easy to crash. also if the GPS lock is not gained at launch then the GPS is irrelevant

5. In terms of ease of flight quads / prop plane / turbine plane / big heli

Personally - I think this is a lot of scare mongering.... the only major issue is idiots flying these things near people. Plenty of videos on you tube of what big helis do to flesh, image 4 props going like the clappers!!

dagenham

1st Nov 2014, 00:05

jammers - lot of old :mad: as far as drones are concerned. If the signal is lost most quads either return to launch site or drop out of the sky. They cannot continue on some automated destructive pathway. Also these are illegal in most countries in EU and North america as they don't comply with air nav laws

Shift1986

1st Nov 2014, 01:37

I'm not sure that you could get away with jamming the 2.4GHz band. Wifi operates at 2.4GHz too, and I suspect that there'd be plenty of lawsuits if an airport decided to disable all 2.4GHz equipment within 10km (or whatever distance is appropriate).

I'm not sure but i think that most r/c transmitters operate on different bands than WiFi does, since they dont interfere with WiFi signal. What is called 2.4Ghz is a lot of frequancy band/channels. And the most popular commercial quadrocopter, the Phantom, operates on 5.8Ghz IIRC. Although 5.8Ghz is also used for some new generation of WiFi i think it can be sacrificed.

Also on the level of rumours, i have spoken once to a son of an oligarch on a r/c models festival, who is himself into r/c flying and is a famous 3D heli pilot in Russia, and he said that in Kremlin and in oligarch's countryside residencies there are devices akin to military countermeasure jammers that will fry the electronics of a drone should it breach the airspace above them. I have nothing to prove those claims though and i am not even sure if it is possible from the physics standpoint. As i understand, the device should induce strong currents in any conducting materials through electromagnetic induction in the vicinity.

CRayner

2nd Nov 2014, 16:10

If you care to examine what is available on the web for relatively little effort you might be astonished at the breadth and variety. You could do worse than to start here A newbie's guide to UAVs - DIY Drones (http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/a-newbies-guide-to-uavs).

Searches on terms such as "ardupilot" and UAV will yield lots of information which has clearly escaped several of the contributors here. There is, for example, a company in Buenos Aires which is marketing a fixed wing UAV with a 20Kg payload and a maximum weight of 87Kg. They're asking US$12,600 for the airframe without electronics. It doesn't take much imagination to see to what nefarious purposes this could lend itself.

GPS jammers have been deployed by military and security forces, and knowing the frequency and feeble power of the transmissions should be readily constructed by anyone interested and energetic enough to do so. Jamming 2.4 Ghz would be much more problematic, as it is the current standard for WiFi, and pretty much any domestic and industrial wireless communication, including medical devices etc. In fact if I planned to use a UAV as a terrorist or merely mischievous device to interfere with aviation I think I would equip it with a GPS device and autopilot for primary flight control. To alter the flight path I would use radio control to revise the GPS co-ordinates.

I have not, and never will have any plans to put this into action, but I think we should all be aware of the possibilities.:hmm:

darkroomsource

3rd Nov 2014, 08:17

2. Drones that you can programme GPS into and they fly themselves are illegal in most countries as you have to have control and line of sight according to the air navigation order. Those that don't come under this are operated by USAF / RAF / A de la air

4. The quads are easy to fly but the orientation issue remains and they are easy to crash. also if the GPS lock is not gained at launch then the GPS is irrelevant

There is a new "breed" of drones that are controlled by a micro-controller, like Arduino or PICaxe. These have built in gyroscope and acceleration, and some even have GPS (and if they don't a GPS unit to install on one costs about £10).

I also know of people who have built quad- and sex-copters programmed entirely by Arduino, with accelerometers, gyroscopes and GPS. In fact there is a well known U-tube channel where you can get all the instructions to make your own out of about £40 worth of kit.

These are very capable of "flying" themselves, and easily programmed by anyone with a PC and the development environment to download the program (the software is free).

I personally know of 2 people who have a drone quadcopter that will fly to and maintain a programmed GPS position.

As for them being illegal. I know of a few people who have untaxed cars here in the UK, as well as some without MOT. Let alone all those cars that have been sold with existing remaining tax on them. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

There are hundreds and hundreds of articles on robotics that explain how to make a self-contained using GPS. If you have a microcontroller controlling a copter, it is a simple thing to add GPS, and many people have already done it. Most of these people are too smart to do something stupid like park it at the end of a runway, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

Microburst2002

3rd Nov 2014, 09:15

It is here.

Like superpowers, drones can be used for good or evil. Unlike in comic books, evil is usually the strongest side.

Did you see that drone in a football match last week, with a flag of one of the teams? It triggered a quarrel, but that's nothing. Imagine that drone swiftly flying direct to the VIP zone, with half a kilo of explosives in it…

Drones will be regulated, heavily, if the authorities don't want a security nightmare. They can even device "shoot and forget" models, that autonomously fly to the target and detonate. Maybe even using cameras and face recognition… Technology is advancing too fast. BAd guys with a little imagination have now a superuseful tool, now. It can be the weapon, or an observing tool, or a decoy… What a nightmare!

That regulation will be good for air safety as well. And they can use air safety as the reason for the heavy regulation that drones require. Police and government, however, they will love using drones for their purposes, that sometimes are evil, too...

It is also evil, to me, that one day one will not be able to look at the sky without seeing a schwarm of them drones.

Mark in CA

4th Nov 2014, 05:19

In today's NY Times:

Unidentified Drones Are Seen Above French Nuclear Plants

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/world/europe/unidentified-drones-are-spotted-above-french-nuclear-plants.html

wiggy

4th Nov 2014, 05:37

Mark

I suspect the NY Times is finally picking up on the French media coverage of the last week or two that was mentioned in previous posts.

FWIW yesterday's "Liberation" French Language newspaper ran a "special" on this (sadly you need a subscription to get anywhere near yesterday's piece) and yet again it was covered on French TV news following at least one more power station overflight (I believe at night, at the weekend).

No-one is as yet claiming responsibility.

Shift1986

5th Nov 2014, 07:12

Chinese made a laser turret to down small drones

http://rt.com/news/201795-china-drone-defense-laser/

Towhee

20th Nov 2014, 06:37

FAA investigating drone sightings near New York's JFK Airport - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faa-investigating-drone-sightings-near-new-yorks-jfk-airport/)

. NEW YORK -- Federal aviation authorities are investigating reports of unmanned drones flying close to John F. Kennedy International Airport.

The FAA said in a statement that three commercial airline pilots reported seeing drones while trying to land at JFK over the last few days.

Drone decision: Ruling gives FAA tighter grip on unmanned crafts
"On Sunday, just after 8 p.m., the pilots of Delta Air Lines 838, a Boeing 737, and Virgin Atlantic 9, a Boeing 747, reported seeing unmanned aircraft approximately 10 miles from Runway 22 Left, flying at altitudes between 3,000 and 2,000 feet," the FAA said.

tartare

20th Nov 2014, 06:52

Why worry about l@ser turrets or targetted radio jamming beams to disable them?
A good old shottey will do the trick up to a certain altitoode!
Both barrels... boom boom.
Or any other kinetic weapon.
Bit of good old buckshot right up them - eh?!!!
In fact the bird scarer bloke could be paid a bit extra to look after such duties around most airports - no?
And out of shotgun range - just mount a bleedin' Phalanx system on the control tower roof.
That'd sort the buggers.
Sorry - it's Thursday night here and I've run out of my meds...

Loose rivets

20th Nov 2014, 10:06

whoever flies a drone or anything less than ~1000 ft from any aircraft should be jailed for a long time as a lesson for others

And various other posts.

It's called deterrent sentencing, (correctly or loosely.) and punishes people for crimes that haven't yet been committed.

I think it's imperative we have the ramifications promulgated in every way possible before locking people up and throwing away the key. After all, we do have the finest newspapers and television in the world . . . don't we?

Also, when any drone is sold, the vendor MUST warn the purchaser of the dangers and the law - in writing and verbally. And I would suggest, file a copy of the purchaser's acceptance of the warnings.

Then you can bring out the tonne of bricks.

SpannerInTheWerks

20th Nov 2014, 12:14

Potentially a huge problem - cheap price, ease of use, 'dubious' reasons for purchase, lack of control over operators.

Unlike model aircraft, where aeromodellers are generally responsible individuals who operate in a sensible manner, drone operators may have ulterior motives and not simply be hobbyists in the normal sense.

grounded27

21st Nov 2014, 14:37

Everything down to what used to be considered toys will be regulated.

FAA Can Regulate Small Drones: NTSB Reverses Judge's Ruling : The Two-Way : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/18/365023143/faa-can-regulate-small-drones-ntsb-reverses-judges-ruling)

donotdespisethesnake

21st Nov 2014, 17:19

AIUI, this was an NTSB ruling countermanding a ruling previously made by an NTSB official (NTSB administrative law judge, Patrick Geraghty, in an appeal by Raphael Pirker against $10,000 fine by FAA).

NTSB conceded that when the Federal Aviation Act creating FAA was passed in 1958, “so-called drones were largely the currency of science fiction.” However, NTSB said, “Congress demonstrated prescience … in the early definition of ‘aircraft’; it expressly defined the term as any airborne contrivance ‘now known or hereafter invented, used, or designed for navigation of or flight in the air’.”

NTSB said there is no “distinction” in the legislative language between manned and unmanned aircraft. “In summary, the plain language of the statutory and regulatory definitions is clear: an ‘aircraft’ is any device used for flight in the air,” NTSB stated, adding, “Therefore we find the law judge erred in presuming the regulations categorically do not apply to model aircraft.So the NTSB do consider paper airplanes and helium party balloons as subject to regulation. In practice, I guess they will be concerned with anything that could cause injury or damage to property, which is certainly true even for model aircraft (Roman Pirozek killed by "toy" helicopter).

The wording of the 1958 Act seems as clear as the Second Amendment, and we know how controversial that turned out to be. I can see this going all the way to the Supreme Court.

Herod

21st Nov 2014, 19:54

But the FAA appealed the decision to the full NTSB, and today's decision cited an FAA advisory that calls for model aircraft to be flown only at altitudes of 400 feet above ground and lower. It also noted FAA rules that prevent operating an aircraft "in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."

Below 400'. Don't see a problem with that. It's within the range of a good catapult. ;)

Bill Harris

22nd Nov 2014, 08:40

Is the old Trappy case still going on?

That guy is a embarrassment to the rest of us. But the precedents that case creates will cause a draconian kneejerk reaction for the rest of us.... :sad:

Capot

22nd Nov 2014, 09:25

I've been in the air transport industry since 1969, in a number of different sectors, eg airline management, airport management and engineering, in a number of different countries, eg UK, UAE, Oman, Jordan, USA, Israel (Gaza), Tunisia, Greece and the Philippines. Before that I was in the military for 10 years, including the final 3 years working as an Intelligence officer in the Gulf region. At various times, and in various ways, I have been closely involved in anti-terrorist and aviation security.

In my view, the free availability of the sophisticated drones that are around now, as well as of the more and more sophisticated ones that are coming fast down the line, represents the biggest threat to air transport (to say nothing of humanity as a whole) that has been seen so far, not excluding hijacking by suicidal maniacs, SAM firings by rogue military forces, or Muslim and other religious extremists.

The threat comes from unintentional collisions, or from terrorist attacks for which drones can be used in several ways.

The threat cannot be diminished by laws governing their operation, for the obvious reason that laws are obeyed only by the good.

The ONLY way that the threat can be reduced to as low as reasonably practical is to impose the same controls on their manufacture and distribution that apply to dangerous, ie nuclear, weapons, with very long prison sentences for breaking the law.

And this needs to be done sooner rather than later. Any drone is a threat to safety, or a dangerous weapon if the user wants it to be, and they are out there, now, in the hands of idiots and terrorists.

SpannerInTheWerks

22nd Nov 2014, 17:38

In my view, the free availability of the sophisticated drones that are around now, as well as of the more and more sophisticated ones that are coming fast down the line, represents the biggest threat to air transport (to say nothing of humanity as a whole) that has been seen so far, not excluding hijacking by suicidal maniacs, SAM firings by rogue military forces, or Muslim and other religious extremists.

Absolutely.

ConnieLover

22nd Nov 2014, 19:46

Microburst2002 (Post #32) and Capot (Post #44) --
Thank you very much for your words of wisdom.

Stone-age beliefs and psychology and 21st century technology is a lethal combination. :eek:

Ian W

23rd Nov 2014, 00:42

Everything down to what used to be considered toys will be regulated.

Well they can try but the regulations down to that level will be unenforceable. Will police be stopping 10 year olds with $19 electric helicopters? Once regulations are unenforceable they lapse into disrepute.

lomapaseo

23rd Nov 2014, 01:00

Like most other flotsam and jetsam regulations in aviation

It will require a statistical balance between avoidance of a hazardous encounter in balance with the damage tolerance of the aircraft and its systems.

We're going to need data in encounters and hopefully none are actually fatal. Perhaps there are some similar experiences already in the data base

Capetonian

23rd Nov 2014, 14:13

I don't know enough about the subject to comment with authority but intuitively it seems that they constitute a danger, as others here have said. This report seems to support that.

Three commercial pilots reported seeing drones, some flying as high as 3,000 feet, near their landing approaches at New York's John F Kennedy Airport.
The FBI and the FAA said they were looking into the reports, the most recent of which came on Wednesday at 1:50 pm local time. The pilot of JetBlue flight B6842 from Savannah, Georgia, noticed an unmanned craft about two miles from the runway, the FAA said in a statement.
"We are aware of it and are looking into it with our partners," FBI spokesman Chris Sinos said.
Pilots of two other passenger planes reported seeing a drone flying at altitudes of between 2,000-3,000 feet on their final approach to the airport just after 8 pm on Sunday, the FAA statement said.
The unmanned craft was seen about 10 miles from the runway, according to information given to authorities by the pilot of Delta flight DL383 from San Diego and the pilot of Virgin Atlantic flight VS9 from London.
Hobbyists who fly drones must follow the same rules as those for model aircraft - no higher than 400 feet and no closer than 5 miles to an airport, with the flying object always visible to the operator, said FAA spokesman Jim Peters.
None of the three pilots took evasive action, the FAA said.
"All three flights landed safely," the FAA statement said.
In July, a New York police helicopter was forced off course at 2,000 feet in the dark skies near George Washington Bridge by a drone that flew too close. Two New York men were arrested on charges of reckless endangerment.
(Reuters)

BDiONU

23rd Nov 2014, 14:32

One near the approach to DXB recently, seen by aircraft at around 5500 feet. All movements suspended until the police chopper had a look but seen nothing. No idea who owned it, where it came from or went to.

wiggy

23rd Nov 2014, 17:41

Christmas gift: attack of the drones | Technology | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/23/toy-drones-christmas-present-hobby)

:uhoh:

flight_mode

25th Nov 2014, 15:53

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”.

Capot

25th Nov 2014, 17:27

just past the QE2 Bridge / Dartford crossing ............ blended-wing aircraft flew right past us in the other direction (west to east), passing under the wing,

hopefully none are actually fatal.

That one wasn't; 8 lives remaining...........Maybe it wasn't as close as it seemed, it often isn't, but if it was close enough to see it was too close.

When will the denizens in the Belgrano find time, between tea-breaks, meetings, team-building etc to start to worry that it might be a good idea to do something immediate, positive and effective to prevent the accident before it happens rather than waiting, in the traditional way, until after there is a hole in the ground with bodies in it, and then blaming everyone else for their failure to ensure aviation safety?

M.Mouse

25th Nov 2014, 18:39

When will the denizens in the Belgrano find time, between tea-breaks, meetings, team-building etc to start to worry that it might be a good idea to do something immediate, positive and effective to prevent the accident before it happens rather than waiting, in the traditional way, until after there is a hole in the ground with bodies in it, and then blaming everyone else for their failure to ensure aviation safety?

And you propose that they do what exactly?

Capot

25th Nov 2014, 19:59

Flag up the issue at Minister level in the UK, as well as in the top levels of EASA, that unless these toys/weapons are banned from sale now, with criminal penalties for infringement, it's simply a matter of time until a serious crash/terrorist crime will take place, and that the danger exists now, not next year. It should also be a crime to own and/or operate one in the UK at least, preferably the civilised world..

The measured bureaucratic processes of procrastination, consultation, drafting etc etc have to be short-circuited, no matter how many people's noses are put out of joint.

It is not impossible to do this; imagine how quickly it will happen if there is an accident caused by an idiot with one of these "toys", especially one over a large city like London.

And I'll bet £1,000 on the existence of a group of extremists, probably in the UK, with at least one of these things and engaged now in working out the best way to use it against a high-profile target such as a commercial airliner on the approach to LCY or LHR 28L/R.

I'm well aware of the complacent view that they are only another kind of model aircraft, which have been flying for years with no problem. But they are not, there is a world of difference.

M.Mouse

25th Nov 2014, 20:17

And all the parts are freely available to build your own. No amount of legislation will stop the reckless or those with criminal intent.

A bit like banning hand guns after Dunblane more draconian legislation only penalises the legitimate.

Capot

25th Nov 2014, 21:12

And all the parts are freely available to build your own. No amount of legislation will stop the reckless or those with criminal intentQuite true. But the parts have been freely available for a long time. But it takes some knowledge to put them together and make the result work well.

Now there are complete, working models on sale, available to all and sundry with no expertise or knowledge whatsoever, and that's why the danger exists.

I detect in some posts the world-weary "'twas ever thus, what can we do, can't stop progress" approach.

That will last until there is a major accident in the USA caused by an unregulated drone, exactly as TWA 800 finally woke the industry into action to remove a danger everyone knew about, which had caused many fuel tank explosions before the one in TWA 800.

Even a drone-related accident in Europe might wake up the industry. Who knows.

When it happens, prevention will suddenly become do-able. What a pity we can never learn the lessons of the past and act to prevent the tragedy before it happens.

Tourist

26th Nov 2014, 03:29

Capot

You are talking as if a couple of crashes is the worst thing that can happen in the world.
Sometimes trying to make everything safe sucks the fun out of life..
Life is not a competition to find who can live the longest you know.
If you have concerns about public safety, why not start with the actually dangerous parts of human existence rather than the single safest mode of transport ever invented.
Over one million people die ever year on the road but where is the uproar? We accept it because we deem it acceptable.
Just like drones

deptrai

26th Nov 2014, 05:00

Tourist - Whoa... “a couple of crashes”... ouch. Not acceptable. And I dont think anyone deems road accidents acceptable either. Road safety continues to improve, people are actively working on it. “making everything safer sucks the fun out of life”... you cant be serious. Not improving safety sucks the life out of life, how are you going to have fun then. Airline safety cant be compared to road safety for a number of reasons, transport aircraft are operated by large organisations, made up of skipled professionals, with vast resources devoted to safety,and rigorous standards. To participate in road traffic all you need is a bicycle, there's essentially no requirements, no training, no team, no professionals, few standards. 10 low income countries stand for about half the world's road fatalities, and a slightly bigger group of countries with 50% of the worlds vehicles, create 90% of fatalities. Safety improvements are also a resource issue, for some, its almost a “luxury, and not all countries can afford the same level of safety. Airline and road safety is like comparing apples to oranges. Yet both are continuously improving, within their particular constraints. Thats the most important after all, that we keep improving safety. Your post is misleading, Road accident rates are no excuse not to keep improving airline safety.

Mark in CA

26th Nov 2014, 20:09

More in today's NY Times:

Now, Anyone Can Afford a Drone. Heaven Help Us.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/technology/personaltech/as-drones-swoop-above-skies-thrill-seeking-stunts-elicit-safety-concerns.html?_r=0

Capot, I'm afraid this may be kind of like trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

Holer Moler

26th Nov 2014, 22:30

The Answer is to legislate in the same way as Aircraft that require Pilots.

1. The Drone/UAV must hold a certificate of Airworthiness.

2. The operator/Pilot must complete a recognised course and hold the appropriate licence.

3. And if the Drone/UAV is being used in a commercial sense - an Air Operators Certificate must be obtained. And the Pilots must obtain a commercial licence.

4. Lastly it should be enforced that the companies or manufacturers of these products are not permitted to sell these Airborne devices - unless the purchaser can prove that he/she complies with the above.

Peter G-W

26th Nov 2014, 23:53

The commercial use of RPAS/UAV is already quite well regulated here in the UK along similar lines to that suggested above. The problem with bringing in draconian laws is that the bone-fide operators (who aren't a threat to safety) will be prevented from operating so the only ones who will continue to operate will be those dangerous ones who are a threat to safety.

lomapaseo

27th Nov 2014, 00:23

Holer Moler

The Answer is to legislate in the same way as Aircraft that require Pilots.

1. The Drone/UAV must hold a certificate of Airworthiness.

2. The operator/Pilot must complete a recognised course and hold the appropriate licence.

3. And if the Drone/UAV is being used in a commercial sense - an Air Operators Certificate must be obtained. And the Pilots must obtain a commercial licence.

4. Lastly it should be enforced that the companies or manufacturers of these products are not permitted to sell these Airborne devices - unless the purchaser can prove that he/she complies with the above.

Thoughts !!!!!!

Let's go to the other extreme.

Just like radio frequency spectrums that must be shared (after all the air is free isn't it)

Drone operations need be regulated to operate only in certain airspaces. Even those without training or credentials (the guy next door) can operate in some spaces without having to show a paper trail. And the big guys can operate in the same space as well but at their risk.

So that leads us back to the fundamental question of what risks are quantifiable (not this what-if stuff, that fills the evening news and discussion boards).

Somewhere along the line we are going to have to assign responsibilty between both conflicting users of the airspace to avoid collisons and for that we need reasonable wordings not just "keep off the grass" signs.

WingNut60

27th Nov 2014, 00:49

12,000 gun related deaths per year in the US and you're going to pass legislation to effectively control drones???

RatherBeFlying

27th Nov 2014, 02:16

xFKsk8mPnPQ

Les Ailes Québécoises ? Forum de discussions (http://ailesquebecoises.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17094&sid=9522e2fd24c759d2f097dade8318a3ea)

Tourist

27th Nov 2014, 05:02

It's the same as all the hysteria about l@sers and terrorists and every other doom laden news report.

"We are all going to die!!!"

Over a million people die every year in road accidents, and yet we all get in cars without undue stress.

Life in London continued through the blitz with 100 tons of high explosives raining down every night.

Watch the footage of Tarir Square where an Apache has about a thousand green lasers on the cockpit yet he continued to fly quite happily.

The modern world worries too much about the statistically insignificant.

I have no doubt that eventually an aircraft will be brought down by a drone either deliberately or by accident, no different from birds really. Should we kill all the birds?

Everybody has to die.
If there are 7 billion people on the planet, and people live let's say 75 years, then to hold steady, 265,000 have to die every day.
265,000 every day!

What's the big deal if 300 die in a plane crash once in a blue moon?

Don't get me wrong, I like being alive, but life is not about surviving the longest, it's about having the best life.
Banning everything that increases the risk of death(Sailing/skiing/motor racing/etc etc etc) would leave a very dull world.

For me, just the amazing footage already seen from baby UAVs is more than worth the infinitesimally small addition to my risk of death from a UAV.

Particularly when you consider that a large airliner should not be in any way vulnerable to a single strike from even a large quad copter. Might lose a single engine yes, same as a large bird really.

Quite frankly, anybody who believes that baby UAVs are as big a risk as nuclear weapons has a credibility(sanity?) issue.

Part of being a decent pilot is the ability to measure risk and adjust accordingly. Anybody who thinks that baby UAVs appear anywhere near the top of the risk register has no place in the cockpit.

The invention of the affordable automobile by Henry Ford made possible the car bomb. Should we ban the car?!

Most people would agree that the many positives of the car offset the occasional tragedy, awful though they are.

Mark in CA

27th Nov 2014, 06:53

GoPro is about to start making consumer drones fitted with their cameras.

GoPro Developing Line of Consumer Drones - WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/gopro-developing-line-of-consumer-drones-1417020883-lMyQjAxMTE0NjI1NjkyOTY4Wj)

Capot

27th Nov 2014, 08:47

What's the big deal if 300 die in a plane crash once in a blue moon?

And with that flash of clarity and insight, he dismantled the whole boring, tedious apparatus erected by bureaucrats and idiots in a doomed, expensive, unnecessary but generally quite successful effort to make aviation just a little bit safer.

I so hope that you are one of the 300. But I weep for the other 299, which might include me if it happens fairly soon.

Mark in CA

27th Nov 2014, 09:20

And this from yesterday's Washington Post:

Near-collisions between drones, airliners surge, new FAA reports show - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/near-collisions-between-drones-airliners-surge-new-faa-reports-show/2014/11/26/9a8c1716-758c-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html)

Since June 1, commercial airlines, private pilots and air-traffic controllers have alerted the FAA to 25 episodes in which small drones came within a few seconds or a few feet of crashing into much larger aircraft, the records show. Many of the close calls occurred during takeoffs and landings at the nation’s busiest airports, presenting a new threat to aviation safety after decades of steady improvement in air travel.

As many/most of these drones contain GPS capabilities, couldn't manufacturers limit altitude automatically? Some of these incidents occurred at several thousand feet.

Tourist

27th Nov 2014, 12:24

Capot

A common sign of the rather over excitable types that tend to congregate around little crusades like this -ie ones that have little or no basis in statistical analysis is that you see nothing wrong with wishing my death for having a different opinion.

You say one thing.
I say the opposite.
Because of this, despite the fact that I have no ability to alter reality and no responsibility for the situation either way, you wish me dead.

Do you not question whether your thought processes are perhaps a little skewed?

I have nothing against the generaly spectacularly effective efforts to make aviation safer. That is not the same as supporting tabloid crusades.

Capot

27th Nov 2014, 16:02

I wasn't really wishing you dead; I just pictured you saying to yourself "What's the big deal if 300 die in a plane crash once in a blue moon?" as you plunge to your doom with the other 299.

Apart from that, I have seen no signs of a tabloid crusade; pity, really.

Mark's last post supports my case, although you may not see it that way. I hope this discussion doesn't become a candidate for JetBlast.

Herod

27th Nov 2014, 16:10

lomapaseo

27th Nov 2014, 17:48

I don't see legislation working. Unlike aircraft, where you at least have a pilot to locate/prosecute, these things can be controlled from anywhere. Trying to find the controller would be needle-in-haystack stuff.

True.

But from the investigation side we're going to need something akin to traceable MAC addresses in the computer thinggie that's controlling it.

deptrai

27th Nov 2014, 18:29

If I ever saw a troll, “tourist” gets pretty close

Bravo Zulu

27th Nov 2014, 19:21

I agree that the use of quad copters is becoming a threat - when used without common sense...

I do fly for a living and I'm also a keen RC plane geek...

Recently, whilst flying my rc plane, a guy came over with a quadcopter. I got talking to him whilst he was using his quadcopter and he told me that he held an "online record" for having reached certain speeds and altitudes with his equipment - which he can prove with onboard GPS... His "record" was 2800ft...

I was alarmed as where he was flying was in the Northwest of the UK with very busy airspace overhead... Liverpool arrivals at 2000ft, the Low level corridor overhead with light aircraft at max alt of 1200ft or so and Manchester departures also overhead... He was unaware of all of this as he was just "a guy of the street that went and bought a quad copter"

I'm all for the hobby of rc flying but the invention of being able to fly out of sight of the operator has its implications...

WingNut60

27th Nov 2014, 19:31

Have none of you flown between the kites at CGK / SUB / DPS during the windy season.

I have seen 10 metre long (including streamer tail) kites in Bali at 2,000 ft and a gang of 20 men holding onto the string.

Tourist

28th Nov 2014, 10:47

Nope, not a troll.

I just happen to believe that aviation has long ago met, or should I say impacted the law of diminishing returns.
The stuff we now spend huge amounts of effort on has negligible/zero effect and costs a fortune.

For some reason it is only aviation.
All other areas of life seem to be exempt.

Flying is safe enough.

Capot

28th Nov 2014, 11:26

Flying is safe enough.Precisely. Now why do you think that is?

I also think you are trolling; no serious poster could be that dim.

donotdespisethesnake

28th Nov 2014, 16:36

Precisely. Now why do you think that is?

I also think you are trolling; no serious poster could be that dim.

I guess that calling someone stupid is a step back from wishing them dead. Either way, ad homs are a sure sign of a lack of rational argument.

There is a legitimate discussion to be had regarding the risks vs benefits of UAVs/drones etc, but calling for a blanket ban because of a tiny perceived risk is absurd and will never happen.

Capot

28th Nov 2014, 18:08

tiny perceived risk

from that Washington Post article that Mark in CA quoted;

Since June 1, commercial airlines, private pilots and air-traffic controllers have alerted the FAA to 25 episodes in which small drones came within a few seconds or a few feet of crashing into much larger aircraft, the records show. Many of the close calls occurred during takeoffs and landings at the nation’s busiest airports, presenting a new threat to aviation safety after decades of steady improvement in air travel.

Many of the previously unreported incident reports — released Wednesday by the FAA in response to long-standing public-records requests from The Washington Post and other news organizations — occurred near New York and Washington.

The FAA data indicates that drones are posing a much greater hazard to air traffic than previously recognized. Until Wednesday, the FAA had publicly disclosed only one other near-collision between a drone and a passenger aircraft: a March 22 incident involving a US Airways regional airliner near Tallahassee, Fla.

I should clarify that a lot of work is going on in ICAO and a number of States, to develop UAS DAA (Detect and Avoid) requirements, regulations and potential solutions, for RPAS (Remotely Piloted Air Systems) operating BLOS (Beyond Line of Sight). I thought you would like those shiny new acronyms. (RAeS Members may recognise that sentence.) This is late in the day, but will probably achieve its objectives in time. But it is about large commercial and military RPAS who expect to operate responsibly in a controlled environment (not necessarily controlled airspace) and do not represent a threat to safety or security (at least not until they are used against a State or organisation such as IS.)

The danger I'm on about is the idiot or rogue with something bought in a model shop that has the capability, intentional or otherwise to bring down an airliner, to whose operator/owner regulations will be a closed book, or a joke. And I do not think the perceived risk is tiny. I think we are sleep-walking to a major disaster, or terrorist attack, using these things within 1 - 2 years at the most.

Tourist

28th Nov 2014, 19:01

Terrorists have had little UAVs for a long time.
Very specialised ones that go really fast and are in fact specifically designed to shoot down aircraft. They are called SAMs.
Yet a remarkably small number of civilian aircraft have been shot down despite many attempts.
My point is that even with the right tools, it is surprisingly tricky to do.

I'm really not that worried about chimps with quad copters, at least not compared to how worried I am about the vast number of SAMs that have disappeared from Libya/Syria etc in the last few years.

Tell me. Do you worry about meteor strikes too?

lomapaseo

28th Nov 2014, 20:29

Do you worry about meteor strikes too?

provocative :)

To worry is satisfying when one feels they can do nothing.

The way forward is to address any enhancement to our life while at the same time keeping in balance with everyday risks.

Sticking to the aviation side of things, we do have some basis for measurements and that doesn't mean counting bodies as an end result. Instead we choose measurement standards typically in the minor consequence range working up to more severe.

Even in the realm of human error in our aviation lives we accept some risk and certainly react to any incidents of more severe nature. We haven't banned the human from the machine, yet, because of a few incidents.

So I am quite willing to let things develop towards measurements of this risk before I support any rulings against its expansion.

And I certainly won't react to a "I told you so" prediction not based on vetted data.

Ian W

29th Nov 2014, 00:08

Capot, you are late there have already been arrests for using 'model aircraft' to attack various targets:

Man, 26, charged in plot to bomb Pentagon using model airplane - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/28/us/massachusetts-pentagon-plot-arrest/)

and

Moroccan man 'planned to fly model planes packed with bombs into school' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2599953/Moroccan-man-planned-fly-model-planes-packed-explosives-American-school-federal-building-Connecticut.html)

These of course are fixed targets and therefore far simpler than attempting to hit an airliner which is actually surprisingly difficult with a UAS that is probably capable of less than 25% of the speed of an aircraft on approach. I think that such collisions are more likely to be accidental.

There are RTCA and EASA working groups developing requirements for management of UAS and for DAA and the associated datalink requirements for BLOS and control operations. Research is also in hand on how to integrate UAS into the National Airspace System. To some extent SESAR is a little more advanced as the individual countries within ECAC (European Civil Aviation Conference) that is the states that within EUROCONTROL - are all making independent approaches to UAS.

Generally the UAS seem to be falling into 3 groups:
* Large 'toys' being used for fun or low grade commercial purposes
* UAS under 55 pounds that are used for professional or 'state' purposes
* UAS above 55 pounds all the way up to full sized aircraft a UAS conversion of the F16, Global Hawk and many many others.

The problem area is the 'large toys'. Especially now the media have got involved publicizing them and the manufacturing of them is so cheap and easy. The last two groups will follow all the regulations, the first group will be flown by some who do not even know such regulations exist and wouldn't care even if they were told.
Anyone who thinks this is going to be an easy area to regulate just has not been involved with what is going on. Professionals in the small UAS group below 55 pounds are extremely concerned that they will be regulated out of the market due to the actions of the large-toy group of idiots.

RatherBeFlying

29th Nov 2014, 03:47

The controllers and airframes are getting ever cheaper, more popular and easier to fly.

There's folks getting hit by Predators who would love to get one of their own in the air and hitting targets.

Tourist

29th Nov 2014, 07:38

Realistically, I think it is very likely that at some point in the near future an airliner on approach or departure will hit a UAV.

There are two factors that will affect the damage this will cause.
1. Size
2. Where it hits.

The vast majority of the cheap toys that are now available are less massive than the larger birds that the aircraft already have to deal with day in day out. (to give you an idea, a goose can be 9Kg. The cheap small UAVs tend to be <1.5Kg) Yes a goose or Buzzard will make a dent in the metalwork or possibly even take out an engine, but the aircraft is specifically designed to survive such a strike. Bird strikes on military jets at high speed and low level are a bit more dramatic, but at approach speeds <250kts (not many baby UAVs getting above that) not a show stopper.
Birds do occasionally take down an airliner, but almost always through multiple ingestion into multiple engines.
I feel I should point out that the sky is literally teeming with birds, yet we don't hit that many.
I suspect we will see a few paint scrapes and the occasional trashed engine.
The bigger toys are a lot more complex and difficult to get hold of, and just like a Cessna should need a license to operate, but don't get carried away with the little toys.

The effort it takes to get hold of and operate a UAV capable of carrying a useful terrorist payload is vastly more than the effort to get hold of an SAM in the current climate.
Why would they bother? Yes to bomb a target, but not to hit an aircraft. Its just silly.

Mark in CA

29th Nov 2014, 07:54

This interesting article from Slate addresses the "monkey with a quadcopter" issue pretty well.

Best drone gifts: DJI Phantom, Parrot AR, Rolling Spider reviewed. (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/11/best_drone_gifts_dji_phantom_parrot_ar_rolling_spider_review ed.html)

I again followed the steps in the Quick Start Guide—calibrating, starting the propellers, nudging the drone into the air with the joystick. The events that followed are seared into my brain like freeze frames from a car accident. The drone zoomed to a height of 50 feet or so, far above the top of that tall chain-link fence I’d been counting on to limit potential damage. The airborne monster did not respond to my frantic jiggling of the joystick, or to my plaintive cries of “Come back!” Instead it rose and rose—and then suddenly rocketed sidewise at alarming velocity. I watched in terror as it flew across a busy street and crashed into the third story of a tall building. It tumbled to the sidewalk with a clatter of broken, scattering plastic.

“The most dangerous thing in that box is the Quick Start Guide,” says Peter Sachs, a drone advocate and the founder of the Drone Law Journal. “There should be no such thing..."

Interesting, too, is the reference above to the Drone Law Journal:

Drone Law Journal | Legal News & Info About Drones, UAVs and Remote-Controlled Model Aircraft by Peter Sachs, Esq. (http://dronelawjournal.com/)

If nothing else, it's good that this conversation is taking place and raising awareness of the issues.

sunside

29th Nov 2014, 09:24

Assessing the potential damage to a jet engine is all good and well. But what about us pilots in the little Cessnas and Pipers? I would really not like to have a drone coming through the front, into the prop or for that matter anywhere on my fragile little bird. This is like "asymmetric warfare". For the "droneys", the risk is small, because the worst thing that can happen to them is that they will have to buy a new one. We may pay with our life. In the end, will we just have to accept the risk or stop flying?

I know this thread is about "commercial a/c", but nothing prevents a small aircraft from being flown commercially. :ok:

Tourist

29th Nov 2014, 13:05

Sunside

Yes, you have rather more to worry about, but it is still no different from hitting a bird, and rather less likely.

KKN_

29th Nov 2014, 20:57

Birds, even the adolescent, inbred, or perspectiveless ones, are not going to be as imbecile as to seek proximity to an airliner. Wish the same could be said about humans and their appendages.

Tourist, your mostly consistent and argument-based writing was about to gain you some air supremacy for what it's worth. Yet, there seems to be more than just playing devils advocate in the vigor of follow-up.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that life should remain somewhat dangerous, and that it's better to peg out on one's peak rather than being switched off after years of machine life. That's an individual choice.

Trouble is, in most cases one does not fly alone aboard a plane - if you (knowing) are one of 300 (unknowing), you can unfortunately not choose to confine the slightly higher risk that you are willing to take to yourself. If you make the call for all, accept higher risks for the whole load, are you not patronizing them (as oblivious as they might be)?

Knowing better for others is not what you want to promote?

Tourist

30th Nov 2014, 04:22

It's not about being deliberately dangerous, it's about the law of diminishing returns.

There are always those who say "you can't put a price on life" but thankfully they are rarely allowed to be in charge of anything.

Somebody has to make sensible decisions about risk.

For the NHS it is NICE.
They quite literally put a price on life. They decide whether a particular treatment is worth the price.

Aviation has a similar requirement.
Thankfully, they do not require the safest option, merely safe enough.
That is why all passengers do not have an ejection seat. It is technically possible, just as it is possible to ban all UAVs, it's just not sensible.

p.s. Birds might not seek proximity, but neither do they avoid! I know this from experience having hit somewhere over a hundred of the things! (Admittedly most were in one go!)

transilvana

30th Nov 2014, 07:36

Up to a year ago drug smugglers were buying all helicopters available to get cocaine and other drugs into south Spain trough the strait of gibraltar. Since one year ago the use big drones, Amazon got late into door to door delivery busniness.

So, how do you deal with That?

Mark in CA

30th Nov 2014, 11:48

Transilvana, it's not just Gibraltar:

Borderland Beat: Mexican Cartel Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (Narco Drones) (http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2014/08/mexican-cartel-unmanned-aerial-vehicles.html)

Mexico’s drug cartels are reportedly commissioning custom-made drones to transport narcotics across the US border, illustrating the continual development of innovative new technologies and methods used to traffic drugs.

While cartels used to use foreign-made drones, the new reliance on home-grown technology and construction is more cost-effective -- the method is cheaper than the construction of cross-border tunnels or the use of semi-submersible vessels, according to El Universal's report.

Mexican criminal organizations have been using UAVs since at least 2010, but the relatively small amount of drugs transported per trip on the drones registered by the DEA helps explain why the cartels want to develop larger, specially tailored UAVs. As drone technology worldwide becomes increasingly accessible and cost effective, commissioning custom-made drones in Mexico is the next logical step for cartels.

Double Back

30th Nov 2014, 14:45

Being a "total airspace user" as a ret. airline cpt, occasional glider pilot, active GA pilot(instructor) and very active model airplane enthusiast (yes up to 55 lbs models like tugs and gliders) I know those worlds hands on. In fact my career started with model airplanes, as it did with hundreds of colleagues I met during my aviation career. I will hopefully be able to keep on model flying till my time has come.

All my aviation life I have benefited from it, the knowledge, the mental hardening recovering from setbacks (as You sat near the remains of a model that cost either a lot of money and/or years to build), the experience in awkward situations like what to do with a tail heavy plane....They were like simulators for my aviation career and did part of my personal mental build up. It brings me a large social network, in my country, throughout Europe and the world.

In terms of an "aviation ladder" the model pilots would be all the way down, not only in airspace usage, but from "high" cockpits like airliners and military jets some people think they have the only right to use airspace. Some GA pilots look down on gliders, gliders look down on paragliders etc and ALL look down on model aviation.

It is hobby, I and (worldwide) hundred thousands other users have the right to have some share of that VAST volume of airspace, which btw. is not "full" as sometimes is stated by people that mostly do NOT fly themselves. I regularly fly in a GA plane over one hour w/o seeing ANYTHING other like birds. And my eyes are still good! And over the years I DID see a few models flying, as I know many model flying sites and am looking for it to see if someone is flying. No danger involved, not even by a long shot.

I am dismayed about the fact that in this thread many pilots cry out for a complete ban, only because of the illegal/criminal use of it, which no legislation in the world will ever stop. Apart from the millions of drones that are already flying about worldwide (from small toy-like stuff to bigger ones), is a trend You cannot stop anymore.

And alas mostly the negative aspect is mentioned here.

By getting a complete ban You would:

Take away the hobby of those hundred thousands of hobbyists.
This hobby is a breeding ground for people that get into aviation as a mechanic or pilot. Or any other technically inclined profession. Tomorrow's engineers. Some governments (the military parts) have some form of supporting in this scene, as they do with gliding. THEY recognize the spin off.
Take away an industry which is still in its infancy, with all the many goodies and a few bad sides. The possibilities of this technology is just about endless, weekly I read about new developments. Like this one, in an artform:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YqUocVcyrE&feature=youtu.be

You would make Yourself ridiculous in trying to ban all those "models" ranging from a few grammes that can be flown indoors, to large 55 lbs models. Where to put the dividing line between toys and more serious stuff? Speed, impact energy, engine power, rotor diameter, weight, wingspan?

Model aviation, I would say the type of hobby which has started shortly before WW2, is no danger at all for other airspace users. Most model pilots are organised and know where and when NOT to fly. The last thing a model pilot will do is risk his model in ANY collision! No matter what. Even a near miss could be bad for him and his club.

I do NOT talk about professional "drone" pilots. It will take a few years, then regulators will have devised reasonable rules for them. At the moment many countries still have none, or are in the making, or have made them so draconian, it is easier to start a sight seeing company with a Cessna 172. The result is there is a lot of aerial work being done by drone pilots without any license.
Now who is stupid here?

Of course, there is a new group of "drone" pilots born over the last 2-3 years. Many have no roots in "classic" model aviation. Don't accept, abide or know about rules. Do not use any intelligence in deciding where and when not to fly. That group poses the biggest risk and believe me, we are worried about them maybe even more that You do, as some desk guy might decide stringent rules for all of us, that would take out our freedoms we have always been so careful with.

I do not want to criticize the reported "sightings" (of which only a few can be seen as a near miss), nor I do want to exonerate idiots that fly close to a descending or climbing airplane, but I have the feeling that suddenly anything is being reported. At the same time, today there must have been some XX birdstrikes worldwide, hundreds of bird near misses that don't even get reported, and millions of birds must have been "sighted".

I have during the course of 17 years of airline captaincy always thought my job was about risk management. You cannot live, and even less fly, without any form of risk.
The chance You will have a collision with a "drone" is just about non existent compared to the bird strike risk.

And remember, in the hands of one really sick guy, just about anything can be used as a murder weapon, how many people have already been killed by a hockey or baseball stick, way easier!

Tourist

30th Nov 2014, 18:22

Beautifully put.

coldair

30th Nov 2014, 20:26

Excellent post Double Back :D

sharksandwich

30th Nov 2014, 22:35

I wonder if this would help? A few years ago "airsoft" or plastic BB handguns, rifles and even machine guns started to become popular, which were so realistic that they were indistinguishable from the real thing.
The response was to legislate that those sold over the counter had to have 50% of their material made of fluorescent material, so that they could be seen as "toys". Other ones could be kept fully realistic, but they could only be bought if the purchaser could prove he belonged to a gun or skirmish club.
Would it be possible to legislate so that multi-rotors capable of carrying an external camera or FPV equipment could only be sold on production of proof of model club membership?

MarcK

30th Nov 2014, 23:01

Would it be possible to legislate so that multi-rotors capable of carrying an external camera or FPV equipment could only be sold on production of proof of model club membership?
Not in the US. Model clubs have no particular legal status, here, and setting up a regulatory framework for model clubs would be even harder than trying to regulate drones. Besides, just as you figure out how to regulate "multi-rotors", someone will start selling single-rotors. Or maybe ducted-fans. One thing that becomes clear with time is that the effort to classify banned items only generates new items outside the banned list.

Double Back

1st Dec 2014, 11:56

some useful reading:
2015 The Year of the Drone | Best Quadcopters | Quadcopter Reviews | RC Quadcopters for Sale | Drones (http://droneflyers.wordpress.com/drone-business/2015-the-year-of-the-drone/)

RCav8or

1st Dec 2014, 16:49

Double Back,
Thank you from another RC modeler, well said:ok:

pedroalpha

1st Dec 2014, 17:06

Double Back,
Very well said. I have a similar aviation background to you and have flown models for over 40 years. There has to be a sense of proportion in these discussions - not hysteria.

Mark in CA

7th Dec 2014, 07:49

Several interest links in this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/sunday-review/things-to-consider-before-buying-that-drone.html?ref=opinion

Apparently, there is a Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College:

Center for the Study of the Drone | at Bard College (http://dronecenter.bard.edu/)

Also, this bit of info:

Reports of drones flying dangerously close to passenger aircraft are becoming a daily occurrence, according to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. The incursions have been mostly at low altitudes as planes were on final approach to landing, but some have occurred at cruising altitudes as high as 10,000 feet.

It also seems that Martha Stewart is a big drone fan now:

Martha Stewart: Why I Love My Drone (http://time.com/3053003/martha-stewart-drone/)

Other interesting info as the world struggles to figure this all out.

DaveReidUK

7th Dec 2014, 08:27

According to today's MailOnline, happened on July 22nd this year:

Heathrow Airbus in near miss with drone that ghosted into Britain's biggest airport undetected by air traffic control | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2863948/Heathrow-Airbus-near-miss-drone-ghosted-Britain-s-biggest-airport-undetected-air-traffic-control.html)

A bit short on details (the Category A incident is listed in the index on the UKAB's website, but the report itself isn't yet up), but the coordinates suggest an aircraft on final approach to 09L with an altitude of 700ft quoted.

Arkroyal

7th Dec 2014, 08:58

I wouldn't rely on the Daily Mail article too much.

It goes on to report a near miss between two British Midland B737s supposedly last Tuesday.

An airline which hasn't existed for over 2 years, in aircraft they haven't operated for 10 years.

funfly

7th Dec 2014, 09:24

As a GA pilot and model flier of many years I consider that DoubleBack has eloquently put into words my own thoughts and I endorse them.

Interesting that this forum posts have on the whole been vey supportive of the model flying hobby and that is maybe that many pilots are model flyers themselves.

While legally and to the uninitiated there may be no distinction between the toy copters, the UAVs and 'model flying' in practice there is a real distinction that hobbyists will understand.

I sincerely hope that the professional UAV situation and the totally different toy copter situation do not impinge on the model flyer who for many years have flown their craft with no adverse effects on the general public or the other users of the air.

Virtually all model fliers will belong to the BMFA which offers comprehensive guidelines and training programs in addition to public liability insurance.

Bergerie1

7th Dec 2014, 12:07

Funfly and DoubleBack,

I agree very much with what you have said. My own aviation career started with model aircraft - balsa, tissue paper and elastic bands at first, then diesel powered control line and free flight models. AND, finally the real thing!

I do hope our legislators keep this in due proportion.

PAXboy

7th Dec 2014, 16:15

Story now BBC and CAA cited: BBC News - Heathrow plane in near miss with drone (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30369701)

horizon flyer

7th Dec 2014, 16:59

and there name and address with ID with photo.

Faire d'income

7th Dec 2014, 17:45

friend007

9th Dec 2014, 08:16

Didn't see this in this thread yet

ASN News » Airspace around Stockholm-Bromma briefly closed following drone sighting (http://news.aviation-safety.net/2014/12/04/airspace-around-stockholm-bromma-briefly-closed-following-drone-sighting/)

Alsacienne

9th Dec 2014, 20:46

On my drive home tonight I was very disappointed to see FNAC advertising drones for sale as Christmas presents 'from 99 €'. At that rate anyone with a hundred euros to burn can present a danger to local airfields and to several international airports all within 100 km of the advertising hoarding.

Capetonian

9th Dec 2014, 20:54

I'm sure French ATC can handle it. They'll just go on strike and everything will be fine.

cwatters

9th Dec 2014, 22:06

Knowing how much you all like journalists....

Todays Guardian newspaper carries an article entitled "Attack of the Drones". It includes a review of four drones tested by the reviewer near his flat which he states is "in south-east London". The article includes a photo that appears to show him flying near houses. He reports that one drone "shot about 100ft into the air" and "crashed into the side of a distant house", landing in the back garden. He also admits to an earlier incident that involved him flying a drone "in the office" where it "smashed into my editors crotch" - apparently that incident prevented him flying it around at Glastonbury this year.

:ugh:

Vanilla Fudge

9th Dec 2014, 22:16

British Airways A320 identified as LHR drone near-miss aircraft British Airways A320 identified as LHR drone near-miss aircraft | Air Traffic Management | Air Traffic Management - ATM and CMS Industry online, the latest air traffic control industry, CAA, ANSP, SESAR and NEXTGEN news, events, supplier directory an (http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/2014/12/ba-a320-identified-as-aircraft-in-near-miss-with-drone/)

Capetonian

9th Dec 2014, 22:16

BBC News - Where you can and can't fly a drone (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30387107)

DaveReidUK

10th Dec 2014, 06:55

British Airways A320 identified as LHR drone near-miss aircraftAnd the coordinates quoted by UKAB locate the event at between 1.5nm and 2.1nm from the 09L threshold, roughly astride the lane that links Drift Way in Colnbrook and Foundry Lane in Horton.

mikedreamer787

10th Dec 2014, 23:56

The NYC police dept is using the "T" word with respect to drones.

Haven't a bloody clue what the "T" word is. Can someone explain it?

ConnieLover

11th Dec 2014, 04:40

Terrorism.terrorists :eek:

MrSnuggles

11th Dec 2014, 11:08

One person is taken in for questioning regarding drone on Bromma Flygplats (BMA/ESSB) in Sweden (article in Swedish):

Drönare stoppade flygtrafik över Stockholm - DN.SE (http://www.dn.se/sthlm/dronare-stoppade-flygtrafik-over-stockholm/)

The airport was closed for about one hour.

The person questioned by police explained that s/he was collecting information for a company involved in a big motorway building project that is ongoing in Stockholm. Apparently they had no clue that drones are subject to legislation.

The explanation is to my knowledge neither confirmed nor denied.

Mechta

11th Dec 2014, 13:00

Double Back, put most eloquently! It amazed me on an aero engineering degree course, how much of a struggle some students had grasping simple aerodynamic concepts that an eight year old with a rubber powered Sleek Streek would have learned after a few flights.

The current situation with multicopters is not that different to that of all the various small motorised vehicles which have been marketed in recent years (Mini Motos, Pit Bikes, GoPeds, Segways, engines for bicycles, etc.). Legislation already exists which covers their use on public roads with regard to licencing, insurance, MOTs & road tax, however the importers and retailers either hadn't made themselves aware of the rules, or chose to gloss over them to ensure they made a sale.

For drones sold by UK retailers, it would not be too much to insist that a sheet of paper was included in the top of the box which either summarised the relevant Air Navigation Orders, or directed the buyer to relevant CAA website (preferably a summary in layman's terms).

With regard to drones mail ordered from abroad, that is going to be more of a challenge to inform the buyers, although current publicity and a few test cases should filter through to would-be enthusiast's awareness.

DaveReidUK

12th Dec 2014, 07:53

British Airways A320 identified as LHR drone near miss aircraftDrone reportedly passed within 20 feet of the A320.

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

KelvinD

12th Dec 2014, 11:50

I have just read the report and something doesn't add up:
The report gives a time of 13:16.
A BA A320 landed at 13:13 (G-EUUR) and G-MIDY landed at 13:21.
Lufthansa D-AIPA landed at 13:19. The report says the aircraft was "blue and white" which would seem to indicate a BA aircraft, rather than the Lufthansa. G-MIDY passed the spot indicated on the map at approx 700' at 13:20.
Aircraft in between these times were a mix of B777, an Aeroflot A330 and a SAS B737.
I have seen buzzards around this area on a number of occasions.

DaveReidUK

12th Dec 2014, 13:29

G-EUYM BA905 landed 1417Z (1517L), Airprox report quotes 1416Z for the time of the incident. What report are you reading?

KelvinD

12th Dec 2014, 14:07

My mistake Dave.
Although I read the CAA report, I was also looking at the BBC report.
Bad move! The BBC report says 14:16 BST. So I looked back through movements around 13:16 Z.
I should have paid attention to the time on the CAA report!

Nige321

12th Dec 2014, 14:41

He stated that a small black object was seen to the left of the aircraft as they passed 700ft in the descent, which passed about 20ft
over the wing. It appeared to be a small radio-controlled helicopter.

Semantics perhaps, but was it a radio-controlled helicopter, or was it a multi-rotor (Drone...)? There's a difference...

If the airprox board can't tell the difference, or use the correct terminology, then we're all in trouble...:ugh:

DaveReidUK

12th Dec 2014, 15:44

Semantics perhaps, but was it a radio-controlled helicopter, or was it a multi-rotor (Drone...)? There's a difference...

The two aren't mutully exclusive.

Nige321

12th Dec 2014, 17:19

No, but if it was a helicopter it's very unlikely to have been flying on GPS. Either an R/C heli out of any control at all, or perhaps just a heli flyer being stupid.

If it was a multirotor, it's more likely to have been a nutter off the street being stupid...

Like I said, the actual type of vehicle is important, and I would have thought the airprox board would have been more careful with their choice of words...

Flying either manually at 700' would be extremely difficult, and impossible to judge if the vehicle was anywhere near (in height) to an airliner.

Prangster

12th Dec 2014, 19:23

As a fixed wing RC aviator of 10 yrs standing I have had much joy and merriment watching RC heli pilots chase their recalcitrant wobble wokkers around the sky. Believe me any RC helicopter more than 400ft above launch point or 400 yards away from the pilot would be an unstable beastie and Mr Newton's laws being what they are the damn thing would fall out of the sky.
The incident suggests therefore a multirotor GPS capable craft with a decent battery performance. £350 from Maplins

Once again technical innovation has outstripped the legislation

wiggy

12th Dec 2014, 19:33

If the airprox board can't tell the difference, or use the correct terminology, then we're all in trouble..

Like I said, the actual type of vehicle is important, and I would have thought the airprox board would have been more careful with their choice of words...

Nige

TBH with 140 (?) ish knots of closure on an object drone/RC helicopter size I'm not sure whether the originator of the report would really be able to tell with 100% confidence what it was, other than something went past with rotors on it, so I'd be inclined to cut the airprox board a bit of slack......

Downwind Lander

13th Dec 2014, 15:31

If the pilot were approaching at around 130kts, could he or she recognise anything that small with any reliability? Imagine such a thing placed on the hard shoulder of a motorway, and you drive past at 150 mph, would you see anything at all?

Nevertheless, I'm glad to see the torch of scrutiny shone on these gadgets and their daft owners (what happens if they fly out of range or the batteries in the controller fade?). Maybe Captain Sully could do a lecture tour on handling the inevitable....

Nige321

13th Dec 2014, 22:16

I'm not sure whether the originator of the report would really be able to tell with 100% confidence what it was, other than something went past with rotors on it,

In which case that should be made clear. The media have jumped on this as a 'drone' event - it might not be...

Herod

14th Dec 2014, 14:33

If it wasn't identified as a drone or a helicopter, it becomes a UFO, and then there is LOTS of paperwork involved.

DaveReidUK

14th Dec 2014, 15:05

The media have jumped on this as a 'drone' event

Not unreasonably, given that the UKAB initially referred to it as a UAV.

3rd_ear

14th Dec 2014, 17:27

You say that half in jest, Herod, but you hit a nerve with me as that possibility has been on my mind.

In the May before the London Olympics, I was riding down an Islington back street one morning and was taking it easy over the ubiquitous speed humps. About to cross the last, I suddenly became aware of a moving black thing directly ahead and above; I initially thought, in the moment, that it was an exotic beetle flapping my way.

I fixed my gaze upon it and passed directly underneath; it was about 18" above my head. It was an object composed of two 5-bladed propellers, one atop the other and contra-rotating, made of a matt-black material with no visible joins. The propeller blades were long ovals and not pitched in any way, the whole thing being maybe 6" across at the very most.

It was absolutely ridiculous, no way could this thing fly. Yet it was sitting there as if cemented into the air with the props rotating slowly enough for me to count the blades. No wires, no power source, no visible join in the shaft between the props (very closely stacked).

Knowing that I'd just seen something breaking all the rules of normal, I rode on and didn't look back. The Heathrow "drone" near-miss report rang that bell for me pretty strongly, I have to say.

eglnyt

14th Dec 2014, 22:45

The Airprox board classification is very strange. The Board assessed it as Risk A but the ERC ranking was only 1. One of them must be wrong.

vip-1

16th Dec 2014, 12:58

https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A9mSs2njOZBUDXgAEBVLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTB1b2R0dXI1BHNl YwNzYwRjb2xvA2lyMgR2dGlkA1ZJUFVLMTRfMQ--?p=clowns+with+Quad+copters+above+3000+ft&tnr=21&vid=07fa4c31d2532732ffae3b58f0461b97&l=655&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DUN.60799898960 9797962%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DGfxdeRx2fLA&sigr=11b5g4pge&tt=b&tit=DJI+F550+Hexacopter+crash+after+flight+above+the+clouds&sigt=11no72f12&back=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dclowns %2Bwith%2BQuad%2Bcopters%2Babove%2B3000ft%26type%3D2button%2 6fr%3Dush-mailn%26ei%3DUTF-8&sigb=13dlb1sas

SamYeager

18th Dec 2014, 16:57

:eek:

Well the poster seems to have learnt his lesson but quite why he ever thought it was good idea in the first place baffles me.

WingNut60

19th Dec 2014, 20:39

Reported in Australian news on Thursday that a man was to be fined $850 for flying a drone above the scene of a siege in Melbourne's western suburbs recently.

Police were apparently negotiating with a man holed up in a house during a nine-hour siege, when the drone crashed into a power line and fell to the ground, nearly hitting an officer.

Police confiscated the drone and handed the case to CASA to prosecute.
As might be expected, CASA said they believed it was a member of the public trying to get pictures of the police operation.

"[It] hit a power line and [he] lost control of the drone, which really emphasises the danger of taking drones to inappropriate places like situations where emergency services are working"

Combine greed, thoughtlessness and a modicum of stupidity and the possibilities for disaster are unlimited.

FlamantRose

20th Dec 2014, 00:34

AIxsVkK-B-c

IBMJunkman

20th Dec 2014, 03:28

The locals have the right idea:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/michaelrusch/watch-a-kangaroo-in-australia-punch-a-drone-out-of-the-sky?sub=3552856_4530497

peekay4

20th Dec 2014, 03:49

In similar vein...

Chinese military's response to unannounced commercial drones? Blow 'em out of the sky:

Operated by employees of Beijing UAV Sci-Tech Co., the drone forced several commercial flights to alter their flight paths and caused others to be delayed.

According to reports in October, the People’s Liberation Army dispatched helicopters to force the drone down.

In Sunday’s report, the People’s Liberation Army Daily said the drone was in fact shot out of the air.

The Chinese Military's Response to Unannounced Drones: Blow 'Em Out of the Sky - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/12/15/the-chinese-militarys-response-to-unannounced-drones-blow-em-out-of-the-sky/)

west lakes

20th Dec 2014, 15:36

Spotted on another forum

I nipped up the road and noticed a drone (with camera) hovering
against the wind over the local bypass. Urgent shopping done,
I returned home, on the bypass I was overtaken by a huge 4x4
just after it passed me it became all brake lights as a drone
bounced off its windshield and hit the deck. I did not see where it
went, I was too busy avoiding the 4x4, the shape of things to come?

Herod

20th Dec 2014, 16:31

Going to be a lot of incidents when the idiots open their Christmas presents. Apparently in UK, drones are the hottest choice of present for the man who has everything (except common sense). Yep, definitely time for a high-powered catapult and a stock of ball-bearings. ;)

El Grifo

20th Dec 2014, 17:30

Where I live, every drone has to have a nameplate attached with all the details of the owner.

Simple yet effective no ?

Herod

21st Dec 2014, 11:46

El Grifo. Good idea; a simple solution. Further to my post regarding catapults, I would like to pose a legal question. Suppose a drone is flying over my house, and obviously photographing activity in my backyard. If I shoot it down with a catapult and the act is captured on the drone's camera, what is the legal position? Just asking; no intention of doing it.

west lakes

21st Dec 2014, 12:33

So, here's a question!

If a drone is seen operating in breech of CAA regulations would it be acceptable to target it with a laser to ruin any film being taken?
I can hardly see the operator complaining to the CAA about it

Downwind Lander

21st Dec 2014, 13:00

Herod looks to catapults. How about a crossbow with a tethered bolt. Then the offending article might be able to be pulled back and stripped for spares. Legal advice needed first.

Peter G-W

21st Dec 2014, 13:07

There are no (criminal) laws in the UK specific to privacy or aircraft noise/nuisance. There are strictly enforced laws however regarding endangering aircraft and criminal damage. So if a UAV is hovering over your property maintaining the legal separation distance in the airspace that you do not personally own, then criminal law lies in favour of the UAV, as it does for any other aircraft. In civil law there might be some redress but that is, as yet, pretty much untested in the UK courts. Catapults and shotguns may not quite be the answer.

I'm not sure many UAVs carry film these days: a bit last century I think.

Mark in CA

21st Dec 2014, 13:49

I'm not sure many UAVs carry film these days: a bit last century I think.
All are digital, upscale models stream live video wirelessly.

cwatters

21st Dec 2014, 14:48

Further to my post regarding catapults, I would like to pose a legal question. Suppose a drone is flying over my house, and obviously photographing activity in my backyard. If I shoot it down with a catapult and the act is captured on the drone's camera, what is the legal position? Just asking; no intention of doing it.

You would be guilty of criminal damage. If it fell on someone and killed them you could/would probably be charged with manslaughter. Even if they were flying illegally.

There are rules in the UK. See CAP 722...

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP722.pdf

For example...

The aircraft shall not be flown:

• over or within 150 metres of any congested area of a city, town or settlement; or

• within 50 metres of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure not under the control of the Remote Pilot...

Peter G-W

21st Dec 2014, 18:38

CAP 722 is a guidance document: the rules are fully detailed in the Air Navigation Order, CAP 393, particularly Articles 166 and 167 (and 168 if you are considering firing rockets at them).

Articles 73 and 74 refer to endangering an aircraft and operating an aircraft negligently.

Mechta

27th Dec 2014, 14:00

Further to my post regarding catapults, I would like to pose a legal question. Suppose a drone is flying over my house, and obviously photographing activity in my backyard. If I shoot it down with a catapult and the act is captured on the drone's camera, what is the legal position?Your evidence that it is an illegally operated drone is only your own opinion. There is always the possibility that the drone is legitimately operated but has been given duff information (map coordinates). That is hardly an offence worthy of shooting down by Joe Public.

Although very unlikely, there is also the possibility that the Police or security services are operating the drone, or it is being operated on their behalf, e.g. looking for the perpetrator of a crime or a missing person. Just suppose the one you hit lost control and caused a car to swerve and hit pedestrians? Is that the fault of the drone pilot?

As Peter G-W says, ANOs regarding the endangering of aircraft apply. You have no control over where the drone will go after hitting it.

mickjoebill

28th Dec 2014, 10:26

New rules comming in Australia.

Drone rules to be toughened in new year following several Australian incidents | theage.com.au (http://m.theage.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/drone-rules-to-be-toughened-in-new-year-following-several-australian-incidents-20141228-12eogi.html)

londonman

30th Dec 2014, 07:05

Fortunately I live in the middle of fields that I own. I also own a shotgun. Job done.

El Grifo

30th Dec 2014, 08:32

Think you are perhaps deluding yourself Londonman !!

londonman

30th Dec 2014, 08:49

How so, El G? :confused: I'm a very good shot :D Don't be confused by my user name. When I say fields I do mean fields. Not Hyde Park !!

On a serious note, I would have thought that these drones, especially the larger ones, were a heaven sent terrorist tool. Just park yourself near the end of the runway being used for take-off. No amount of legislation will prevent that sadly.

RiSq

30th Dec 2014, 13:23

As someone who is an aviation enthusiast as well as a drone pilot myself, I find some posts in this thread insulting. I imagine a fair few of you are Hobby pilots as well, which means you understand the situation.

It's like me outright saying that every pilot here must be of the same competency of the AF447 crew. It's outright slander and considering the first P in PPRUNE is Professional, I think some here should bow their heads in shame.

There are three very distinct groups under drone pilots - Hobbyists, "Amateur Photographers" and "Hipsters - AKA Morons"

I fly my drone responsibly, as do many. Unfortunately, the minority ruin it for the masses. 2 ways to improve this are startling obvious, yet as history has shown us, we won't act until lives are lost - it actually has a lot of parrallels with the aviation industry as a whole.

Make the Bnuc-s course compulsory for model pilots so it covers general flying and not just commercial use, whilst making the cost £50-100 instead of £1500!!!!

As suggested here earlier, create a registration system for UAS vehicles. Have an online database with owner details.

Hold shops accountable to ensuring customers have said qualification / complete the registration.

Whether you like it or not, UAS / UAVs are here to stay and will only increase in size / performance / lower costs. The fact is, you get morons in all walks of life - be it Drone pilots or Commerical Airline pilots and all other job sectors for that matter. The discussion is better pointing to legalisation and helping the genuine people who are passionate hobby pilots clear the bad reputation of the minority, whilst making the idiots accountable for their poor decision making, which will ultimately get people killed.

Also - to those citing terrorists using these as bombs - Are you actually for real? Yep - that's exactly what they will be used for. After all, over the last 10 years, all of those 1/5 scale petrol cars which are capable of 70mph have been cruising along the M4 bearing the IS Flag on frequent bombing runs.......

El Grifo

30th Dec 2014, 13:42

londonman

30th Dec 2014, 13:49

RiSq

I understand where you are coming from. However, to anyone determined enough none of the suggestions you make will prevent unscrupulous shops selling drones to anyone they feel like - whether or not the customer has any form of formal licence or qualification.

If some people are happy to drive a car without insurance or tax then what makes you think that their counterparts in the drone world won't do exactly the same?

Re your reference to the M4, last time I looked I didn't see any 747's driving down the outside lane !!:)

RiSq

30th Dec 2014, 14:00

RiSq Add another category to your list.

Professional Videographers and Photographers :ok:

No doubt that in the hands of the masses, Drones will only become a bigger and bigger pest if left uncontrolled.

El G. El Grifo - I neglected to mention those - you are correct. The likelihood is, they have obtained bnuc-s though as they require it to to fly professionally (Commercially) and to seek CAA approval for flight plans. Of course, you only get the bnuc-s after paying out a small fortune as it stands, but gearing up a similar course or a re-structure of the existing one will drastically improve things.

It doesn't help that one person at the CAA tells you one thing, then another tells you something completely different. The CAA needs to get its house in order.

The fact is - you are always going to get people who bend the law and rules. But rooting out the ones deliberately flouting the rules from those who break them unknowingly is half way to solving the problem - no perfectly, but it will help.

RiSq

I understand where you are coming from. However, to anyone determined enough none of the suggestions you make will prevent unscrupulous shops selling drones to anyone they feel like - whether or not the customer has any form of formal licence or qualification.

If some people are happy to drive a car without insurance or tax then what makes you think that their counterparts in the drone world won't do exactly the same?

Re your reference to the M4, last time I looked I didn't see any 747's driving down the outside lane !!:)You are correct - it won't be the all-in-one solution but it would help a lot and half the issue is education. People don't understand the technology which is in their hands half the time.

Having a system in place would help root out the bad apples from the good though.

Ref my M4 Comment: - Lets face it. If a terrorist wants to blow something up, they will. There were loopholes in the security systems of Aviation and they were exploited. Those holes have now been closed to a ridiculous level and in some instances, at a loss to the average joe. Gone are the days where you could go up to the cockpit and have a look around, arguably denying budding pilots of the future that moment of inspiration and awe - something I'm sure most pilots detest themselves (Ok - you get the annoying spolit PAX, but according to my brother-in-law, it evoked a great sense of pride for him seeing the enjoyment it bought)

Put it this way - If I was an insane terrorist wanting to inflict damage on a massive scale - Aircraft would not be on my agenda, when I could freely carry a backpack onto the subway / underground or Waterloo station at peak times and take out 2-widebody craft Passenger manifests amount of people without the hassle. To carry a hefty payload, you are talking Professional grade drones which run into the thousands of pounds. You are then in a niche, which makes it easier to trace back as well. It's a lot of agro and seems a bit cliche. As I said, I don't see RC cars going under buses in Central london blowing them up - why would drones be any different?

The 9/11 style attack worked - We all now live in fear of the unpredictable. That's more affective than killing a thousand people in a Jihadi's eyes.

londonman

30th Dec 2014, 16:30

Good points, RiSq

I guess I was thinking more of a drone being sucked into one of the engines. Perhaps not as draconian as one loaded with explosive but the knock-on effect re people's willingness to fly might take a severe dent maybe seeing as how drones can be bought in Maplin's and be perceived by Joe Public as too easy to repeat.

Nige321

30th Dec 2014, 21:17

RiSq

All your points are all fine and Dandy, but:

Make the Bnuc-s course compulsory for model pilots so it covers general flying and not just commercial use, whilst making the cost £50-100 instead of £1500!!!

Why?? What will that achieve? How will this stop the nutters flying on the LHR approach...?

As suggested here earlier, create a registration system for UAS vehicles. Have an online database with owner details.

Is the LHR nutter really going to bother?

Hold shops accountable to ensuring customers have said qualification / complete the registration.

Many of the vidoes on YT showing flagrant breaches of the ANO are filmed using 'drones' built from components. Google 'Team Black Sheep' for a start - they'll even sell you a kit, posted from outside the UK.
Do you ban/register the sale/import of brushless motors? ESCs? Props? Carbon tube? Nuts and bolts??

:ugh:

RiSq

30th Dec 2014, 22:07

Nige,

All valid counter arguments - but could that not be said for all walks of life -

Your nutters will still shout at CC for their Wine not being chilled perfectly and start drunken brawls on planes threatening to kill everyone with a bomb.

Execs will still cause a massive disturbance in the cabin just before a departure because her nuts were in a bag not a bowl.

Pilots still drink and attempt to fly aircraft.

All of those are nutters and pose serious threats to Aircraft safety in one of the most regulated industries in the world alongside medicines / injectables. The fact is, no amount of regulation is bullet proof and will not stop the moronic baffoons. But regulation, clear guidelines and legislation help keep it to a minimum.

The videos on YouTube as you quite rightly state, are astounding. Prosecutions are now starting to occur, but the problem is, the FAA / CAA still do not seem have one stance on it The guy that slams a Drone into a building about 600ft up in NY got away with it, no prosecution - that is a serious threat to not only helicopters but people on the ground too - Countless acts of breaches in the UK as well have gone without prosecution. Educating people will help, but will not stop all. Regulating to an extent will help, but not stop all. A major issue is the lack of education. For example, I can go and buy a quad over the counter, no questions ask, which has a climb rate of something like 20m/s. If you don't know what you are doing, 3-4 seconds held down, you have got some serious Alt and may be out of range - if its not a correctly configured unit or TX/RX issues occur, that will keep climbing, leaving the person on the ground in a bit of bother and potential traffic even more so. I'd like to see compulsory trainning of some sort, but how that is regulated is difficult.

Another thing worth noting - although it is somewhat irrelevent - but most drones / Quads/ UAS are light plastic composites so people simply don't think about it causing damage to an aircraft. The majority are not metal framed (You are getting into the serious stuff here) - It would be interesting to see GE / RR etc + Government / FAA / CAA do an ingestion test of a well known (For example, DJI Phantom) into one of these engines - as an educational video and from a safety perspective. I think if people saw that, they would be shocked at the damage it would do - I'd say it would be on par with a Canadian goose going through it, seeing as the materials are not as fragile as organic matter.

My point is,

if a terrorist blows up a plane, we don't stop flying do we?

If a person is killed in a car crash, we don't stop driving?

There is no blanket way to stop these people without destroying it for the majority. All we can do, is do our best, be it the FAA / CAA , Hobby pilots and the courts to come up with a way of allowing responsible pilots to fly whilst punishing those that commit offenses. Carpeting the issue of drones and drone pilots in general as negative is not the right answer. If the London paper's artical on how "Pilotless planes are safer" are anything to go by, you'd better invest in a FPV kit and a drone to practice on for when you have to fix the computers mess remotely from a hangar :ok::ugh:

Nige321

31st Dec 2014, 09:02

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that the responsible users aren't the problem. And whatever 'rules' are brought in, Mr Nutter will still wander down to Heathrow...

We are fortunate in the UK that the CAA and the BMFA have an excellent relationship, and the CAA realise that legislating for the sake of it isn't going to work.

They seem to have a philosophy of helping the responsible, while prosecuting the irresponsible.
Lets hope it continues...

mickjoebill

31st Dec 2014, 10:26

Photojournalist arrested after filming with drone near Gatwick airport | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/31/drone-photojournalist-arrested-gatwick-aiport-near)

A journalist who is also a CAA registered drone flyer, informed police on scene at a fatal fire that he was going to launch to take pictures.
But when it became airborn someone took exception and the ensuing events are as staggering as they are disturbing.

Police claiming a drone caused a breach of the peace!

msjh

31st Dec 2014, 13:27

Even in the Southern UK where air space is at a premium, there is room for everyone so long as we all play sensibly and legally.

Peter G-W

31st Dec 2014, 16:04

I wonder if the Surrey police committed an offence by wrestling the controls off the pilot and thus endangering the aircraft and the surrounding people whom they were claiming to be protecting? You would think that the journo would have responded promptly if they had said, " Excuse me, sir, please can you land the aircraft immediately as we wish to discuss the current situation?"

thelad

31st Dec 2014, 16:32

Im not sticking up for the plod but if he was in Gatwicks ATZ he was not complient to CAA regs and wants locking up if he did not get permisson from the ATC.

donotdespisethesnake

31st Dec 2014, 16:51

Police claiming a drone caused a breach of the peace!

I was at an airshow where a lady collapsed shortly after a Spitfire crashed (it was a very distressing sight). An accredited photographer tried to take photos of the lady receiving treatment but he was hustled away under protest.

Balancing people's rights to privacy vs freedom of reporting is already tricky and wider use of drones for photography is bound to run into these issues.

Peter G-W

31st Dec 2014, 16:52

He wouldn't need permission from ATC as his SUA was less than 7 kg so he was in compliance with UK law in that respect.

Piltdown Man

31st Dec 2014, 17:19

Every now and again Plod get it wrong. These stupid goons were equipped with two-way radios so they could have asked for more information, but chose not to. So in this case their ignorance and stupidity demands some form action, possibly even a criminal prosecution. Wreckless endangerment of the public, flying close than 50m to people not associated with the event, air piracy etc. if you illegally interfere with aircraft, you must pay the price.

thelad

31st Dec 2014, 17:28

Over 7kgs or under he would still need permission from Gatwick ATC to fly/oparte in Gatwick ATZ.

Piltdown Man

31st Dec 2014, 17:31

So the police officers were guilty as well! They must not be let off.

eglnyt

31st Dec 2014, 17:43

Over 7kgs or under he would still need permission from Gatwick ATC to fly/oparte in Gatwick ATZ.

Can you provide a reference to support that ?

Peter G-W

31st Dec 2014, 17:58

I think he will struggle with that...

thelad

31st Dec 2014, 18:04

Ring the BMFA and ask! Ill scan my handbook in the morning for you! So your saying its ok for me to get my foamy out and fly it around at the bottem of an airport runway in the ATZ Without permission?

eglnyt

31st Dec 2014, 18:20

I'm not saying anything, you were the one claiming there are CAA regulations prohibiting it.

If you can cite an article in the Air Navigation Order or other legislation that prohibits flying an SUA under 7Kg in the ATZ then provide a reference to it. I would be interested to see it.

Whilst I would agree with the BMFA that flying in the ATZ may be unwise they aren't an authoritative source and unwise is not the same as illegal.

With regard to your suggestion that you should fly at the end of the runway I suspect there are articles in the ANO, 137 for a start, that would prohibit that if the airport were open and traffic was landing on that runway.

Peter G-W

1st Jan 2015, 11:38

The ANO requires operators of SUA of greater than 7 kg to gain permission from the appropriate ATSU to operate inside ATZs, Class A, C,D or E airspace. (See CAP 393, Article 166(4). The general thrust of NATS (UK) policy for the large international airports (as explained to me when setting up my own business last year) is that sub-7 kg SUAs may operate without restriction in CTZs whilst above-7 kg SUAs will be refused permission on an ad-hoc basis but may apply under Non Standard Flight procedures. Obviously smaller airfields may have a more relaxed policy. At Manchester airport, the locals release flocks of pigeons on a regular basis, judging by the NOTAMs, which is arguably more of a danger to traffic than a single SUA. But NATS accommodates it and everyone gets along just fine.

With respect to operating at the end of an active runway, Article 166(2) would come into effect whereby "the person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made." So if you do that then you are breaking the law. Operating at 300 ft agl 5 miles south of Gatwick where the airliners are all up at 5-7000 ft should not be a problem.

As someone wisely said above, there is plenty of airspace to share around quite safely. Spouting off about regulations that don't actually exist really doesn't advance the debate.

MrMachfivepointfive

1st Jan 2015, 12:30

THIS is what drones should be used for:

HONG KONG FIREWORKS 2015 - Filmed with a Drone [Team BlackSheep] - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX99sIC-MoQ&feature=youtu.be)

PURPLE PITOT

1st Jan 2015, 14:08

Not that familiar with the CAA drone regs, but if the plod forcibly took control from a licenced operator in flight, they need prosecuting to the full extent of the law.

TurboTomato

2nd Jan 2015, 11:03

Operating at 300 ft agl 5 miles south of Gatwick where the airliners are all up at 5-7000 ft should not be a problem.

But he wasn't. I know that area - he would have been approximately 800m laterally from aircraft on final for 26L at around 1300ft AGL. You tell me if that is legal. And what he was attempting to do (photograph the aftermath of a fire that killed 2 children and an adult) was distasteful at best. So plod have my full backing tbh.

DaveReidUK

2nd Jan 2015, 11:44

I know that area - he would have been approximately 800m laterally from aircraft on final for 26L at around 1300ft AGL.That sounds right - looking at the map, the mobile home site is about 4 DME from the threshold. If an aircraft at that point was at 150' (the height the drone was flying at) then I'd suggest that the presence of a drone half a mile off the port wingtip would be the least of the pilot's problems.

You tell me if that is legal.Well we're still waiting for our Yorkshire friend to back up his assertion that it isn't, by quoting chapter-and-verse, but if you can save him the trouble ...

And what he was attempting to do (photograph the aftermath of a fire that killed 2 children and an adult) was distasteful at best.He's a press photographer. That's his job.

TurboTomato

2nd Jan 2015, 11:50

Ah the old 'just doing my job' line. I suppose if he wasn't there then someone else with a drone would have been, eh? :rolleyes:

I have no idea whether it's legal, hence the asking. My point was that comparing it to flying one 5 miles from aircraft at 5000-7000ft was, literally, miles from the truth.

thelad

2nd Jan 2015, 17:39

I can not quote chapter and verse of the ANO, i am only going by what we have been told by the BMFA and the Poster we was sent by them from the CAA http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1995/CAP%201202UAVsafetyrules.pdf. (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1995/CAP%201202UAVsafetyrules.pdf)
it clearly states to stay away from airports and airfields.
The BMFA are not a "authoritative source" as you say but the drone pilot would be required by the CAA to have insurance as part of his approval from the Civil Aviation Authority so most likely it will be through the BMFA and would be void if he did not follow there regulations.
Either way if he was to fly in to the flight path of a landing aircraft he would be putting aircraft/persons in danger and that would be covered in the ANO.

gaz_1000

2nd Jan 2015, 22:45

BMFA rules or insurance do not come into it. This was a commercial flight which the pilot appears to be fully qualified to undertake. In the UK, commercial RPAS work comes under the jurisdiction of the CAA and has nothing whatsoever to do with the BMFA. BMFA insurance does not cover commercial flying and the pilot is legally required to have a commercial policy in place (far more expensive).

The flight seems to have been professionally undertaken with landowner's permission, an observer to monitor for incursions (who would normally be paid) and the pilot explained intentions to on-site police prior to the flight.

Over 7kgs or under he would still need permission from Gatwick ATC to fly/oparte (sic) in Gatwick ATZ
Nonsense. In the UK, flying an RPAS under 7 kg MTOM commercially (would guess a phantom is less than 2kg?) is perfectly legal in a CTR/ATZ without notifying ATC, providing the criterion "the person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made " is satisfied. As far as I can see the latter issue is the only point open for discussion.

Ah the old 'just doing my job line'. I suppose if he wasn't there then someone else with a drone would have been, eh
Yep. It’s what the press do and, once again, is perfectly legal. Although appeals to morality do not affect legality,the pilot doesn't appear to have been filming anything distasteful, just the scene of a tragic event. Freedom of the press is essential in a democracy, in many situations it helps to hold those in power accountable – such as when a couple of plod go completely ego, snatch a control and attempt to land a 2kg RPAS without the necessary skills. Fortunately they got lucky and I'm sure it makes for a good pub story, but the outcome could have been very different. From what I have seen/read the guy flying was far more responsible than local police.

And as for the police claim (after exhausting all other options) that he had caused a breach of the peace, just have a look at the situation in the video/photos. Can you see people fleeing in panic or an angry mob gathering in the background? The phrase "trumped up charges" immediately springs to mind.

Mechta

3rd Jan 2015, 13:09

The site residents and/or Police were probably more concerned that the rightful owners of various vehicles and items of property might spot them in the pictures from the drone. Knowing how the Police will do anything to avoid confronting such people about retrieval of property, both groups were probably only too happy to work together to prevent the drone operator from getting the pictures. :E

As for: Surrey Police said he was arrested following complaints his behaviour was "disrespectful and intrusive". I hope neither the Police or the site residents would be hypocritical enough to view distressing images from Iraq, West Africa or anywhere else in the world.

mickjoebill

3rd Jan 2015, 22:14

Quote:
Surrey Police said he was arrested following complaints his behaviour was "disrespectful and intrusive".

And what law says it is illegal to be disrespectful or intrusive?
The breach of the peace was caused by the onlookers and enacted by the police!

Police are very keen to control the media, it makes policing easier.
But an elevated picture of the house is more descriptive than from ground level, especially if the roof has collapsed.

Police will fight the deployment of drones over incidents as they will argue that in an ongoing investigation some details are best kept from the public gaze.
This was the excuse given for a massive size air exclusion zone that extended 20kilometers from an incident, all the way to the Thames heli lane whilst they dug up the back garden of a suspected terrorist in North London in full view of the adjoining terraces which backed onto the garden.:ugh:

There are plenty of cases where cameramen have been illegally stopped from filming in public places due to "terror laws". In this case the problem is poor understanding of the law by bobbies on the beat.

A legal point to consider is that the taking of a photo is one thing and that publishing is a seperate act. One can be legal and the other not.

Those who think police should respond to any member of the public who is merely offended deserve to be arrested for having BO wearing distasteful clothes or humming within earshot out of tune.

Whilst filming a proper documentary about a HEMs doctor I was assaulted by a family member of a young boy who was being resuscitated in the back garden of the family home which was in a poor neighbourhood. The parents had arrived back from the pub, a little worse for wear, they had left the boy playing with his mate and he had hurt himself.
Although I was wearing same day glow outfit as the doctor the camera was a red rag to a bull and the father hit me. This is understandable! (The only time I have been assaulted)
The police grabbed him and I withdrew.
To my embarresment a few minutes later the police made the poor guy come up to me and apologise, all the while the doctor and para medics continued to work in vain, on his son :(

The point is that police make value judgements and are human, clearly they were stressed by the behaviour of the parents of not supervising their son.

Freedom of press must be maintained, the police enforce laws, they dont make them.

londonman

4th Jan 2015, 11:11

Mickjoebill - freedom of the press is fine (provided it is used responsibly). But trying to do your job knowing that every Tom, Dick and Harry are recording your every move on their damn Smartphones would try the patience of Job.

But we are digressing from the main thread, I fear.

west lakes

4th Jan 2015, 11:23

Regarding filming and photography, this is the Met's advice to officers which I would expect to be echoed nationally

From
Photography advice - Metropolitan Police Service (http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice)

Guidelines for MPS staff on dealing with media reporters, press photographers and television crews

There is nothing preventing officers asking questions of an individual who appears to be taking photographs of someone who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s Forces (HMF), Intelligence Services or a constable so long as this is being done for a lawful purpose and is not being done in a way that prevents, dissuades or inhibits the individual from doing something which is not unlawful.

Contact with photographers, reporters and television crews is a regular occurrence for many officers and staff. The media influences our reputation so it's crucial to maintain good working relations with its members, even in difficult circumstances.

Following these guidelines means both media and police can fulfill their duties without hindering each other.

Creating vantage points
When areas are cordoned off following an incident, creating a vantage point, if possible, where members of the media at the scene can see police activity, can help them do their job without interfering with a police operation. However, media may still report from areas accessible to the general public.

Identifying the media
Genuine members of the media carry identification, for instance the UK Press Card, which they will present on request.

The press and the public
If someone distressed or bereaved asks the police to stop the media recording them, the request can be passed on to the media, but not enforced.

Access to incident scenes
The Senior Investigating Officer is in charge of granting members of the media access to incident scenes. In the early stages of investigation, evidence gathering and forensic retrieval take priority over media access, but, where appropriate, access should be allowed as soon as is practicable.

Other parts deal with the terrorism excuse, which suggests that the use of supposed powers in the past have actually been illegal

Mark in CA

7th Jan 2015, 20:50

For some reason there were four articles posted by the Associated Press today, all under the theme "Drone Revolution":

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/07/us/ap-us-drone-revolution.html?ref=us

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/07/us/ap-us-drone-revolution-inventors.html?ref=us

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/07/us/ap-us-drone-revolution-preventing-crashes.html?ref=us

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/07/us/ap-us-drone-revolution-20-uses.html?ref=us

sablatnic

18th Jan 2015, 21:33

If a repost, please delete.

Atatürk Havaliman?'nda izinsiz 'Air Drone' uçu?u! - Dailymotion video (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ezzso_ataturk-havalimani-nda-izinsiz-air-drone-ucusu_news?start=1)

jcjeant

18th Jan 2015, 23:17

Hi,

Already posted :)
Already deleted :)
No threatening at all .. as it's a pro job (certainly hired by the airport authority!) ;)

DaveReidUK

19th Jan 2015, 06:46

No threatening at all .. as it's a pro job (certainly hired by the airport authority!)A quick Google search on "Istanbul airport drone video" would suggest otherwise.

darkroomsource

19th Jan 2015, 15:24

A while back, someone said "it's not possible"YfGeOOVtNHM
According to another site, the person responsible has been identified and arrested. (he posted it on youtube, duh!)
But it goes to show that some people might not even think there's anything wrong or illegal about doing it.

IBMJunkman

20th Jan 2015, 03:29

Just what we need. Long range:

Long Range HD FPV + Telemetry over WiFi <50ms Latency!

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/794458221/long-range-hd-fpv-telemetry-over-wifi

jcjeant

20th Jan 2015, 03:36

Skies open for drones over busy Istanbul airport - SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/skies-open-for-drones-over-busy-istanbul-airport.aspx?pageID=238&nID=77155&NewsCatID=374)
Speaking to Doğan News Agency, retired pilot Nuri Sakarya slammed the authorities for allowing the flight of an unauthorized aircraft near the control tower.

“No foreign object should be able to come closer than 10 kilometers. This is air traffic terrorism which could cause a serious danger as the drone could have hit an airplane,” said Sakarya.

Meanwhile, Sefa İnan, a retired Turkish Airlines technician, said the sale of drones should be regulated. “There should be directives. Any person can buy and fly a drone anywhere now; this should be stopped,” İnan added.Like for guns .. it's not the gun who kill .. it's the people who pull the trigger !
The drone pilot:
http://www.aspetmanukyan.com/eng/about.html

DaveReidUK

20th Jan 2015, 06:31

it's a pro job (certainly hired by the airport authority!)This is air traffic terrorism which could cause a serious danger as the drone could have hit an airplaneGlad we've got that cleared up, then.

Mick Stability

20th Jan 2015, 16:42

But do you think it has the payload capacity for 100ml of pilot's shampoo?

darkroomsource

21st Jan 2015, 08:17

It doesn't need a payload.
It has a camera, so it can be flown right into the path of an aircraft taking off (when they figure out that getting in front of one taking off is more of a hazard than one landing, then we're in trouble)

msjh

21st Jan 2015, 12:17

Many drones, such as those from DJI, are now being designed not to work when near major airports. For example, here's an extract from the DJI Inspire quadcopter manual:

"Category A Safety Zone
(1) The category A “safety zone” is comprised of a small “no-fly zone” and a range of “restricted- altitude zones”. Flight is prevented in the “no-fly zone” but can continue with height restrictions in the restricted-altitude zone.
(2) 1.5 miles (2.4 km) around a designated safety zone is a no-fly zone, inside which takeoff is prevented.
(3) 1.5 miles (2.4 km) to 5 miles (8 km) around restricted areas are altitude restricted, with maximum
altitude going from 35 feet (10.5 m) at 1.5 miles (2.4 km) to 400 feet (120 m) at 5 miles (8 km).
(4) A “warning zone” has been set around the safety zone. When you fly within 320 feet (100m) of the
safety zone, a warning message will appear on the DJI Pilot App."

londonman

21st Jan 2015, 12:22

So what happens if you take-off and then fly towards/into the safety zone? Does it fall out of the sky?

DaveReidUK

21st Jan 2015, 12:25

Many drones, such as those from DJI, are now being designed not to work when near major airports.Presumably drones are pre-programmed at the factory with the coordinates of all the world's major airports.

Flight is prevented in the “no-fly zone” but can continue with height restrictions in the restricted-altitude zone.The Istanbul drone pilot is on record as saying that he succeeded in disabling those protections in order to perform the video flight.

msjh

21st Jan 2015, 12:30

So what happens if you take-off and then fly towards/into the safety zone? Does it fall out of the sky?

I don't know and I have no plans to test it! However I expect that the drone will ignore input from the controller that might cause it to break these limits. Kind of like an invisible wall ...

msjh

21st Jan 2015, 12:32

Indeed you will always find people who find ways to bypass restrictions.

However, radio-controlled aircraft capable of doing these things have been around for decades. Modern drone manufacturers are adding a level of safety that did not exist before.

darkroomsource

21st Jan 2015, 13:17

Radio control aircraft require more talent to fly, and in order to get to that point, the "pilot" will probably have come in contact with people who've told them that it's not legal to fly "just anywhere".
I have not heard of or seen a radio-controlled aircraft (other than the "drone" style of helicopter) that has inertial stabilisation systems on board, and therefore RC aircraft require a steady hand and lots of practice.
Drones are extremely simple to operate, and can in fact be operated with no input whatsoever, just program in the coordinates to fly to/from and away it goes.
That's the issue, to my way of thinking.
It's easy to mount a la*er pointer on the drone, and fly to where it would be in the take-off path, and shine the thing in the windscreen of departing aircraft.
Or just fly it into an engine.

londonman

21st Jan 2015, 13:35

@msjh I don't blame you but it does still beg the question! I can't see how or what safe mechanism can possibly be put in place. You launch your drone and set in on a course for an airport. It reaches the 'invisible wall'. And what then? Keeps bumping forward then retreating?

I'm afraid that I put hobby type drones in the same category as social networks... a technology that should never have been invented!!

msjh

21st Jan 2015, 13:42

@londonman

Having checked the manual, as the DJI Inspire enters restricted space around an airport it will automatically land and will not take off again while in that zone.

msjh

21st Jan 2015, 13:47

@darkroom ... as noted above, at least some modern drones will not fly in restricted zones around airports. This should limit the ability of stupid people to endanger airliners.

For the malicious ones : they will always find a way and could have used RC aircraft in the past.

woolypig

21st Jan 2015, 14:03

I found this piece of news today: Complete Retard Flies Drone Over Istanbul Airport (http://www.dronethusiast.com/complete-retard-flies-drone-over-istanbul-airport/)

How do we report him to the authorities? This is outrageous.

R04stb33f

22nd Jan 2015, 21:31

Well the French seem to have taken the time to at least inform people where they can and cannot fly their drones. Here is an interactive map showing where you can, and within what limits, fly yer drone...

Cartographie spécifique aux Drones en France (http://www.aip-drones.fr/carte/aip-drones/)

GoldwingSpain

23rd Jan 2015, 11:02

Quote:
So what happens if you take-off and then fly towards/into the safety zone? Does it fall out of the sky?
I don't know and I have no plans to test it! However I expect that the drone will ignore input from the controller that might cause it to break these limits. Kind of like an invisible wall ..."

There is a stepped perimeter that stops the DJI drones from entering airspace near airports.

At certain distance out you can fly but restricted to height.
Then if that distance is crossed it will auto land.

DaveReidUK

23rd Jan 2015, 16:16

DJI video explaining how the "no-fly" zones are implemented:

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

Category A (large) airports have a 5 mile/8 km zone defined around them in the drone's firmware (but only if you have downloaded a firmware update). The drone is height-restricted between 1.5 and 5 miles from the centre of the zone and will not fly at all closer than 1.5 miles.

For Category B (smaller) airfields it's a 0.6 miles radius no-fly zone.

A downloadable list on the DJI website shows 175 Category A airports worldwide and 513 Category B.

DaveReidUK

23rd Jan 2015, 22:56

According to OAG, there are over 4000 airports worldwide receiving scheduled airline service.

So DJI's no-fly-zone database covers less than 20% of them.

msjh

24th Jan 2015, 06:10

Indeed. To some extent, as in so many areas in life, we will need to rely on people being educated and responsible.

Paraffin Budgie

25th Jan 2015, 02:47

Dubai airspace forced to shut down by unauthorised drones - ArabianBusiness.com (http://www.arabianbusiness.com/dubai-airspace-forced-shut-down-by-unauthorised-drones-579682.html)

glendalegoon

26th Jan 2015, 21:45

with a drone found on the white house lawn, maybe it is time to get serious?

drone home

Mark in CA

27th Jan 2015, 06:26

This NY Times article includes the photo of the drone that crashed on the White House lawn released by the Secret Service.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/white-house-drone.html?ref=us

Mark in CA

5th Feb 2015, 06:48

Rather than highlighting the actual dangers of drone flight, the White House crash-landing is a better illustration of the hodgepodge, almost backward set of rules governing the drone industry in the United States.

Commercial operators — people who are making money from their flights and therefore have an incentive to improve their training and the technology on their drones — are now barred from flying in most circumstances. And the Federal Aviation Administration is expected to release new draft rules in the next month that will allow for commercial drone operation in only a limited way. The rules are likely to prohibit drones from flying above 400 feet and require that they be used within sight of the operator.

Untrained hobbyists like the one who crashed the drone in Washington, however, are allowed to fly their devices with relative freedom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/technology/personaltech/giving-the-drone-industry-the-leeway-to-innovate.html?ref=business

SoaringXc

9th Feb 2015, 14:25

I’m surprised that no one has brought up “see and be seen” in this thread. Legitimate drone users, whether hobbyist or professional, shouldn’t object to the factory installing a bright flashing strobe light and/or a transponder squawking a drone-specific code. It’s true that nut-jobs and/or criminals wouldn’t buy such a drone. The criminals are beyond redemption (unless caught), but nut-jobs probably wouldn’t make the effort to build their own drone having no “see and be seen” capability. Combine this with the on-going factory effort to build in limits on where their drones can fly and I think it would make drone use much safer than it is now.

Mark in CA

14th Feb 2015, 11:10

SoaringXc -- I think the issue with strobes and/or transponders may be power drain, as most of the commercial/consumer devices already seems to be short on staying power, as well as cost.

Had my first close encounter with a drone last week as one zoomed around over the ski slopes while I was having some fun in Italy. This was in addition to at least two low-flying real helicopters that appeared to be involved in some kind of practice or observational exercises.

SoaringXc

14th Feb 2015, 16:23

Mark, the power issue really isn’t a big deal. An LED strobe draws 120 mAh, while a modern Mode S transponder only needs 220 mAh. This is peanuts compared to a drone’s motor draw! I concede cost might be an issue right now, but if demand goes up the cost will drop rapidly.

Mark in CA

15th Feb 2015, 17:03

The FAA just took a huge step towards legalizing commercial drone flights | The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/15/8040647/faa-small-uav-drone-rules-regulations)

Double Back

15th Feb 2015, 21:27

In the manned airplane the responsibility is equally shared between both pilots who have to look, see and avoid.
When flying let's say a GA plane, and closing in on a drone, the situation is not equal.
The drone is small, has very little surface to see and is most of the times black, and is stationary or moves at a slow speed. The latter means that Your eyes don't remark a movement against the background, which is mostly also darkish.
When meeting a "classic" model airplane, it will be different as it will be moving in a way that it protrudes from the background, moreover, many have bright colours on a relative large area.

The drone pilot will hear a plane or helicopter approaching first. Then, while scanning the sky, he will see the airplane, which is clearly visible against the sky backdrop.
He will have time enough to descend or get out of the path of the plane.

So there lies a big responsibility in the hands of the drone operator and they should be made aware of this. Many "ground pilots" have no idea how the view of the pilot in the plane might look like and that his drone will only be seen in the last moment at close proximity.

Transponders: apart from the weight and cost, ask big airport controllers what they would think of a tsunami of "blips" cluttering their screens even more. Other planes would not benefit directly, only a few GA planes have a TCAS system, which is VERY expensive.

If drones are used in a responsible way, there are many benefits possible, we are just at the beginning of what will eventually become a new aviation branch, creating many jobs.

Please do not only stare at a few over exposed (worldwide)incidents. The drone risk is minimal compared to the bird strike risk.

However, both hobbyists and commercial operators will have to be made aware of they risk they can be for manned aircraft. Most of the "classic" model airplane pilots already know, but now the new group needs to be made aware. If information does not work, publicising expensive penalties or jail time for irresponsible drone pilots will surely help.

It worked getting passengers think twice before starting an "air rage".

vapilot2004

15th Feb 2015, 22:18

My nephew discovered a google search for the title "NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING REGULATORY EVALUATION" will lead one to the leaked FAA study on proposed commercial drone regulation.

Mark in CA

16th Feb 2015, 07:25

I suspect the recreational use of drones will eventually decrease, after this initial wave of popularity, once the novelty aspect wears off. After all, unless you're an enthusiast -- a relatively small number -- what can you really do with a drone after you've flown it around the neighborhood a bunch of times? How long that will take, however, is anyone's guess. Right now there's a declining cost curve, which will probably attract more buyers, but eventually the market will be saturated and people will move on to the next fad.

SoaringXc

16th Feb 2015, 14:03

Double Back,

It’s precisely this inequality between drone operator and pilot why I suggested mandatory strobes and/or a transponder. I personally don’t trust someone whose maximum loss in case of accident will be on the order of $1000, when I have my life on the line. I don’t buy the minimal risk theory, either, when police, pipeline inspectors, bridge inspectors, tower inspectors, press, realtors, Amazon and even pizza shops are talking about using drones.

As I already said, strobes are cheap to install and operate, right now. I expect transponders to become cheaper (especially if demand goes up). Drone transponders would only need about a 10 km range (to turn on TCAS and ADS-B In systems, or simple Zaon PCAS transponder detectors in flying aircraft), so the possibility is there to make them smaller and lighter. And there’s no reason ATC should be overwhelmed, they can easily filter out a drone specific squawk code.

I think the proposed FAA rule for small drones is a good start, but I want to see more done in the “see and avoid” arena. I intend to respond to the FAA and ask that they mandate strobes on all drones, in addition to their other proposed requirements.

jxf63

24th Feb 2015, 14:06

It seems the French are continuing to have problems of their own...

Mysterious Drones Spotted Flying Over Paris (http://news.sky.com/story/1433062/mysterious-drones-spotted-flying-over-paris)

MatrixMan

3rd Mar 2015, 23:09

I work in at a certain airport based in the East of the Midlands...;)
Long time member, Very few times poster... and a CPL...

We actually received an e-mail from a company just a few days ago informing us that they will be carrying out drone surveys on a local site a mile from the threshold of the runway. Those who know the area of the airport will know its a race track...

The company/guy in question has the correct permits from the CAA that state it must not operate at a height above 400ftagl. and no further than 500 metres from the operator.*

He/They will be calling us before, and after the operation. :ok:

If everyone with a legitimate reason to operate has all the permits in place and contacts the correct people pre and post operations. I cant see how it can become a danger to aircraft...

If only everyone stuck to the rules!

*- I can see this is a very legitimate company. Obviously there are some very UN-legitimate UAV operators out there...

M100S2

4th Mar 2015, 09:58

"a mile from the threshold of the runway
"must not operate at a height above 400ftagl"
"and no further than 500 metres from the operator."

"He/They will be calling us before, and after the operation."

Presumably the landings will be occurring at the other end of the runway during drone operation as 1 mile from the threshold = circa 300ft

I'm staggered that permission would be granted

he1iaviator

5th Mar 2015, 05:57

http://www.thestar.com.my/~/media/Images/TSOL/Photos-Gallery/Nation/2015/03/03/saudiairlines.ashx?w=620&h=413&crop=1&

http://www.thestar.com.my/~/media/Images/TSOL/Photos-Gallery/Nation/2015/03/03/airasiadronepic.ashx

DCA Files Police Report Against Drone Operator Near KLIA | Lowyat.NET (http://www.lowyat.net/2015/03/dca-files-police-report-against-drone-operator-near-klia/)

No comment!

jack11111

5th Mar 2015, 06:34

Do you suppose photos like these will encourage more such behavior?

Ahernar

5th Mar 2015, 07:45

This kind of pictures can be made with a drone under 500g in weight (and with today's technology) .
IMO i would treat "drones" very differently based on weight class . How to differentiate them by weight i don't know , i would have to see impact tests at different speeds with different size drones . I imagine a 20 gram motor would have a different punch that a 300gram one but maybe both are lethal to a jet engine (unlike the birds these are very dense). Anyway what you want is to get the everyone's toy drones smaller (the phantom is kind of big ) and the bigger handmade ones low , bright and out of airport areas , not to get the operators to go stealthy and paint them in camouflage.

jack11111

5th Mar 2015, 07:58

These drones need to display strobe lights when airborne...and yes, I don't care if they are heavy and/or expensive!

Ahernar

5th Mar 2015, 09:05

http://www.morrisoninnovations.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/IMG_2609-e1415678052991.jpg

These will not get meaningfull strobes ever . I know that the majority here would try to get drones to behave like the other air traffic but the reality is that this would be impossible for the large majority of them . What i suggest is to find where the drone size becomes benign for aircraft and steer the manufacturers there so that when an iresponsable flyes one near an airport would be a 300g bumblebee , not a 5 kg beast. Also getting that iresponsable in jail would help more than trying to uninvent them .

ex_matelot

5th Mar 2015, 09:15

Collision with a drone is just a birdstrike with batteries. What's the difference in risk?
Maybe the politicians should legislate against geese first?

MG23

5th Mar 2015, 13:40

Collision with a drone is just a birdstrike with batteries. What's the difference in risk? Maybe the politicians should legislate against geese first?

I don't know of anyone who deliberately flies a goose near an airliner. Though maybe that woodpecker-riding weasel might get some ideas.

Sunamer

5th Mar 2015, 13:45

In our lab (i am a grad student working on a UAV-related research project) we are actually using UAT ADS-B transceiver for one of our UAVs.

According to FAA, UAT 978 MHZ devices should be a must by 2020 on all GA AC (and hopefully drones <-- that's just my ignorant hope). It is not that expensive, honestly. The cheapest solution so far for full In/Out capability is around 2400 bucks. I think it will drop even further. It uses the same message standards as a normal 1070 ADS-B solution would, it just has a different frequency.

The UAT that we are using is of the size of a box 7 in x 5 in x 2 in - it is actually kind of light. You would think that it should be heavier). I mean, there is definitely a way to make it much smaller so that it could be put on much smaller UAVs.

I think there should be that and heavy fines as a nice addition - those photos from that UAV hovering near the threshold are really scary... :eek:

SoaringXc

5th Mar 2015, 21:09

Sunamer, I applaud your trying to broadcast your drone's location. But UAT isn't a great way to go, because airliners won't receive it. In the USA glider community we decided to go with 1090 Mode-S transponders, so that we'll appear on TCAS. That's in addition to to our using PowerFLARM, which is a glider to glider and glider to tow plane position and anti-collision system.

You can get a 1090 Mode-S transponder for about the price of your UAT that will be ADS-B Out capable. A Trig TT21 will be the same size and weight of your UAT. Unfortunately, you'll have to fork out another $3000 to get a TSOed GPS to legally use ADS-B Out in the USA!

It's a shame we cannot use our FAI approved GPSes to achieve ADS-B OUT - we can wire them in and properly set up the transponder right now, but the FAA seriously frowns on anyone who does this. The situation is different in Europe; they allow it.

MatrixMan

6th Mar 2015, 05:31

These drones need to display strobe lights when airborne...and yes, I don't care if they are heavy and/or expensive!

I don't really think these operators can say strobe lights are 'heavy' or expensive... LED Technology has come along way... LED's are used a lot more now than just illuminating a panel in your car at night. They are bigger, Brighter, lighter and more reliable.

Msunduzi

6th Mar 2015, 11:21

I have my doubts if a strobe would help much.
Could easily get mixed up with reflections from the ground, (car windows, and lots of other things could cause flashes). They could no carry high power strobes.

Like other RC rebels (ie FPV) it is a small number of people who ignore the law, and any legislation would no make any difference to them, they would still do as they want.

The problem is that they are now so easy to "fly" that any one can buy one and "fly" it.

It is the sale that has to be controlled, not the use.

Sell only to people who have the BMFA A cert at least, and belong to a recognised club.

That would make enforcement of current legislation more manageable, and that legislation is sufficient if followed.

More legislation would only affect honest users, it would make no difference to those who don't care in the first place.

That way they can be enjoyed in safety, and the people breaking the law will be easier to identify. If of course there is any manpower to do anything about it anyway.

ask26

8th Mar 2015, 00:44

For those of you who think these things aren't there already:

Red Baron Anti-collision Light
Sagetech Transponders with ADSB In, GPS Alt Encoder

Both less than the size of a PC mouse, just the cost at the moment.

Sunamer

9th Mar 2015, 17:30

ask26: "Sagetech Transponders with ADSB In"

I guess, you meant to say "ADS-B Out"... :8
"In" is only for the receiving part of the equation...

The Sagetech website offers In solutions for 1400 bucks, if I am correct. Something tell me that Out will be "a bit" more costly.
And Out solution isn't available yet:

Quote from their website: "Between now and then, let’s get acquainted. Click the button below to be notified by email when the Mode S ADS-B Out Transponder will be available."
But if they do that - that would be a nice thing - it seems like the size is really small, comparing to what I am working with...

MG23

9th Mar 2015, 19:16

I guess, you meant to say "ADS-B Out"... :8
"In" is only for the receiving part of the equation...

In could be useful for a drone, as it would then be able to automatically get out of the way of nearby aircraft. And, given it can be done with a $15 USB stick and a tiny amount of CPU power, probably not a bad thing to add to them... there aren't many people who'd want an aircraft to hit their drone.

Of course, you'd still need to add ADS-B transmitters to all the aircraft around here that don't transmit their location...

MG23

9th Mar 2015, 19:30

Sell only to people who have the BMFA A cert at least, and belong to a recognised club.

That could work for big drones which require specialized motors and batteries, but, pretty soon, a basic drone will just require:

1. A 3D printer.
2. A few pieces of commonplace electrical and electronic gear.
3. Some open-source software downloaded off the Internet.

No sales restrictions are going to stop those becoming ubiquitous. They'll be following people around posting selfies on Facebook before the decade is out.

Edit: BTW, I think there may be a bigger threat to commercial aircraft from drones than colliding with them. VR is suddenly becoming big again as the technology has reached the point where it's technically viable without many of the problems of the past (high cost, low resolution, nausea, etc). Today, if I want to go and visit the wonders of the world, I have to get on a plane and fly there. Ten years from now, I could put on a VR headset, rent a drone, and fly it over the Internet. That tech is only going to get better over time, and will be much cheaper than an airline ticket.

MatrixMan

16th Mar 2015, 19:20

This entrance on the NATS Blog from the 13th March:

Lords urge civilian drones database | NATS Blog (http://nats.aero/blog/2015/03/lords-urge-civilian-drones-database/)

Dont see how it will stop them 'illegal' flights...

golfbananajam

20th Mar 2015, 10:23

Picked this off the BBC website this morning

The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has approved Amazon's plans to begin testing drones for online deliveries.

The FAA said it had granted Amazon a certificate for people with pilot's licenses to test the unmanned aircraft.

The drones must be flown at 400 feet or below during daylight hours, and must remain within sight of the pilot.

Under US law, operating drones for commercial purposes is illegal.

However, those rules are under revision by the FAA, which is expected to issue new rules regarding the operation of unmanned aircraft for commercial and recreational purposes.

Amazon had asked the US regulator for approval to begin the tests last July.

In December, the firm warned that it might begin testing the programme - known as Amazon Prime Air - in other countries.

"Without approval of our testing in the United States, we will be forced to continue expanding our Prime Air R&D footprint abroad," wrote Paul Misener, Amazon's vice president of global public policy, in a letter to the FAA at the time.

As part of this ruling, the internet retail giant must also provide data on the number of flights conducted and any other relevant information, on a monthly basis.