Drones threatening commercial a/c?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tokyo's Drone Squad
In an effort to enforce no-fly-zones across the city, Tokyo's Metropolitan Police Department is launching a drone squad.
Tokyo?s drone squad will deploy 10-foot drones armed with nets to police the sky | Ars Technica
Tokyo?s drone squad will deploy 10-foot drones armed with nets to police the sky | Ars Technica
Join Date: May 2000
Location: East Yorkshire
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dronewinder?
I've often tried hitting a party balloon with a conventional model a/c - almost impossible but still fun. As for a firework, disposable radio gear could turn out expensive
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New FAA Ruling for USA - Drone Operators are Pilots
Just saw this on NPR web site, maybe not a complete fix but it covers the larger and more hazardous ones:
"Starting Dec. 21, all operators of small drones — devices weighing between 0.55 pounds and 55 pounds — need to go online and register their names and addresses with the Federal Aviation Administration. The government would issue a registration number that would need to be displayed on that person's entire fleet of drones."
No Longer Just A Toy: Regulators Say Drone Operators Are Pilots : The Two-Way : NPR
Here's the PDF info sheet from the FAA:
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/20151213_IFR.pdf
"Starting Dec. 21, all operators of small drones — devices weighing between 0.55 pounds and 55 pounds — need to go online and register their names and addresses with the Federal Aviation Administration. The government would issue a registration number that would need to be displayed on that person's entire fleet of drones."
No Longer Just A Toy: Regulators Say Drone Operators Are Pilots : The Two-Way : NPR
Here's the PDF info sheet from the FAA:
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/20151213_IFR.pdf
Complete waste of time. The people who will cause trouble with their drones will ignore it ; the more so to avoid punishment when they pursue their dangerous antics near aircraft.
The only effective (& sane) approach is to ban these aircraft entirely !
The only effective (& sane) approach is to ban these aircraft entirely !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There appears to be an insane loophole in the new FAA regs on drone registration. Apparently, non-citizen operators can't register their drones. The FAA, by law, cannot register aircraft belonging to foreigners. They can issue a certificate of ownership, but that seems to be completely voluntary. So I guess any non-citizen terrorists wanting to use a drone can go right ahead without worrying that they are breaking the law! 
Here;s the FAA's FAQ on this: UAS Registration Q&A
Here;s the FAA's FAQ on this: UAS Registration Q&A
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether it's effective or not, what's interesting to me is that somehow the FAA decided to set the weight limit for "dangerous" drones at 0.55 lbs. Obviously there has to be some limit, because flyweight versions of these things are being sold in the thousands now as household toys. But was that based on any kind of testing, or are they just putting it in the "small bird strike" category and assuming it won't be a problem?
What's the result of a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft smacking into a drone that weighs a quarter pound?
What's the result of a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft smacking into a drone that weighs a quarter pound?
Let us hope so ! I don't wish to be a killjoy to those innocent operators of these machines; but does anyone NEED to use them ?
Start down that path and all of the above would be next on the list...
€0.03 supplied,
PDR
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether it's effective or not, what's interesting to me is that somehow the FAA decided to set the weight limit for "dangerous" drones at 0.55 lbs. Obviously there has to be some limit, because flyweight versions of these things are being sold in the thousands now as household toys. But was that based on any kind of testing, or are they just putting it in the "small bird strike" category and assuming it won't be a problem?
What's the result of a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft smacking into a drone that weighs a quarter pound?
What's the result of a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft smacking into a drone that weighs a quarter pound?
I am not sure that the average 'drone' user who only changes away from MTV to play call-of-duty or Grand Theft Auto, will know that his drone needs to be registered. It is also this user that will see no problem at all in flying close to an airport.
But the bureaucrats have 'made a regulation' so that problem is solved.
PDR1
You make a fair point; but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I guess that it is a question of assessing the danger of all these things. I accept that you can't ban everything that might be a danger. However, there must be limits, somewhere, to what you are allowed to do.
You make a fair point; but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I guess that it is a question of assessing the danger of all these things. I accept that you can't ban everything that might be a danger. However, there must be limits, somewhere, to what you are allowed to do.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying drones is completely safe if you use basic common sense and abide by the rules. Don't fly over 400 ft, out of sight, over crowds and respect peoples property and privacy.
The rules are clear about flying near airports, restricted areas or near any aircraft. Most have GPS so won't fly into a restricted airspace or even take off if you are in one. Suggesting banning them with no reason because the word drone sounds scary is silly. Besides being a lot of fun to fly and do aerial photography they are being used a lot more to benefit all of us.
The rules are clear about flying near airports, restricted areas or near any aircraft. Most have GPS so won't fly into a restricted airspace or even take off if you are in one. Suggesting banning them with no reason because the word drone sounds scary is silly. Besides being a lot of fun to fly and do aerial photography they are being used a lot more to benefit all of us.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Somewhere beyond the sea
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three weeks ago a C152 almost collides with a heavy quadcopter over the N entry point in LELL airport at 3000 feet AMSL (2500 AGL) while descending to land.
Other pilots reported drone activity in the traffic pattern of this airport at 1500 feet AGL.
Other pilots reported drone activity in the traffic pattern of this airport at 1500 feet AGL.
<However, there must be limits, somewhere, to what you are allowed to do.>
There ARE limits, clearly defined in law both here in the UK and over in the colonies. So what we're looking at here is finding effective means of law-enforcement, not a need for new laws. I suggest that the knee-jerk populism evidenced in the FAA regulation fails to provide effective law-enforcement.
Why? The people covered in the scope of this regulation can be divided into three groups:
1. Hobbyists (both "conventional" RC model flyers and "multicopter/FPV" flyers). These people have a long-term experience of and interest in the hobby. They are mostly members of national associations (like the BMFA in the UK or the AMA in the colonies), and carry 3rd-party liability insurance. They are aware of, and generally abide by the laws, restrictions, codes-of-practice and safety procedures applicable to their hobby and present insignificant risk to the public or to man-carrying aviation. The new regulation will not change their risk in any way.
2. Commercial or pseudo-commercial (academic) operators. These people have discovered the emergent multicopter technologies and use them to perform legitimate activities. They're a varied bunch - aerial photography for estate agents ("realtors" to colonials), aerial crop survey, small-scale crop-spraying, archaeological survey, wildlife photography & study* and even search & rescue** . Heck, last year I had a roofing specialist out to quote me for repairing leaks on my rental property. It's an old 3-storey edwardian house with high, gabled rooves that need scaffolding just to get up and take a look. This guy had a multicopter with an HD video camera and accurately surveyed the job in 20 mins, saving £1,00 on the final bill. These people are useful. They are also commercially licensed both in the UK and the states. They have an approved Operations Manual (very similar to any other Air Operator) which defines their operating limits, procedures, separations etc etc and they stick to them, They carry insurance, and these chaps & chapesses aren't a threat to anyone else either, and the new regulation will have no effect on their risk.
3. The "Hooligan" element. These are the people who do crazy things to get attention on youtube. Some film themselves driving cars through city centres at 200mph in the early hours of the morning. Some film themselves strapping fireworks to cats. Some film themselves playing silly-beggers with guns, and some use multicopters to take daring or dangerous footage (like filming aircraft in the pattern at airports). You can also include the peeping tom filmers and intrusive journalists in this group. These people are basically stupid. They are dangerous, ungovernble and reprehensible, and constitute the best argument I've seen for moving the abortion limit from 28 weeks to around 70 years. They represent a significant risk to the public and to manned aviation. This new regulation will have no effect on them whatsoever, because they won't register. They will simply operate covertly - the FPV vehicles which they use can be flown from inside the back of a van with blacked-out windows. Sure, Police officers might shoot down and seize an offending multicopter, but they'll have extreme difficulty finding the owner, and the owner will just go and spend another $600 on another one.
So the regulation will place a burden on those who are NOT a problem whilst being completely irrelevant to those who ARE a problem. And at a rough guess based on observations, of the people in the scope of the regulation well over 98% fall into the first two categories. Way to go, lawmakers!!
There is, of course, an interesting observation to make when it comes to conflicting demands on lower VFR airspace. Both the UK and the colonies are democracies. If it was ever deemed that general aviation and RC hobbyists could play nicely and share airspace so it came to a straight fight over who has the right to (say) the first 2,000 feet AGL I would be willing to bet a fairly substantial sum**** that the RC hobbyists outnumber the VFR man-carrying aviation fraternity by something like 50:1 in the UK and possibly a bit less in the states. So being a democracy the only *ethical* course of action would be to ban man-carrying aircraft from the lower (say) 3,000 feet AGL anywhere outside an ATZ. Do we *really* want to go there?
€0.03 supplied,
PDR
*A friend of mine does this commercially and has taken hours of footage of migrating birds in flight in africa and the various upper layers of rainforests for academic researchers and film/TV companies
** We've had cases of multicopters being used to take water, food, pocket-warmers and survival blankets to people trapped in bad weather on the moors or on cliff ledges where the mist was far too clagged in to consider flying a helicopter to them
*** [this footnote intentionally left blank]
****Perhaps two or even three Arbies Steak Sandwiches - not something I normally risk lightly
There ARE limits, clearly defined in law both here in the UK and over in the colonies. So what we're looking at here is finding effective means of law-enforcement, not a need for new laws. I suggest that the knee-jerk populism evidenced in the FAA regulation fails to provide effective law-enforcement.
Why? The people covered in the scope of this regulation can be divided into three groups:
1. Hobbyists (both "conventional" RC model flyers and "multicopter/FPV" flyers). These people have a long-term experience of and interest in the hobby. They are mostly members of national associations (like the BMFA in the UK or the AMA in the colonies), and carry 3rd-party liability insurance. They are aware of, and generally abide by the laws, restrictions, codes-of-practice and safety procedures applicable to their hobby and present insignificant risk to the public or to man-carrying aviation. The new regulation will not change their risk in any way.
2. Commercial or pseudo-commercial (academic) operators. These people have discovered the emergent multicopter technologies and use them to perform legitimate activities. They're a varied bunch - aerial photography for estate agents ("realtors" to colonials), aerial crop survey, small-scale crop-spraying, archaeological survey, wildlife photography & study* and even search & rescue** . Heck, last year I had a roofing specialist out to quote me for repairing leaks on my rental property. It's an old 3-storey edwardian house with high, gabled rooves that need scaffolding just to get up and take a look. This guy had a multicopter with an HD video camera and accurately surveyed the job in 20 mins, saving £1,00 on the final bill. These people are useful. They are also commercially licensed both in the UK and the states. They have an approved Operations Manual (very similar to any other Air Operator) which defines their operating limits, procedures, separations etc etc and they stick to them, They carry insurance, and these chaps & chapesses aren't a threat to anyone else either, and the new regulation will have no effect on their risk.
3. The "Hooligan" element. These are the people who do crazy things to get attention on youtube. Some film themselves driving cars through city centres at 200mph in the early hours of the morning. Some film themselves strapping fireworks to cats. Some film themselves playing silly-beggers with guns, and some use multicopters to take daring or dangerous footage (like filming aircraft in the pattern at airports). You can also include the peeping tom filmers and intrusive journalists in this group. These people are basically stupid. They are dangerous, ungovernble and reprehensible, and constitute the best argument I've seen for moving the abortion limit from 28 weeks to around 70 years. They represent a significant risk to the public and to manned aviation. This new regulation will have no effect on them whatsoever, because they won't register. They will simply operate covertly - the FPV vehicles which they use can be flown from inside the back of a van with blacked-out windows. Sure, Police officers might shoot down and seize an offending multicopter, but they'll have extreme difficulty finding the owner, and the owner will just go and spend another $600 on another one.
So the regulation will place a burden on those who are NOT a problem whilst being completely irrelevant to those who ARE a problem. And at a rough guess based on observations, of the people in the scope of the regulation well over 98% fall into the first two categories. Way to go, lawmakers!!
There is, of course, an interesting observation to make when it comes to conflicting demands on lower VFR airspace. Both the UK and the colonies are democracies. If it was ever deemed that general aviation and RC hobbyists could play nicely and share airspace so it came to a straight fight over who has the right to (say) the first 2,000 feet AGL I would be willing to bet a fairly substantial sum**** that the RC hobbyists outnumber the VFR man-carrying aviation fraternity by something like 50:1 in the UK and possibly a bit less in the states. So being a democracy the only *ethical* course of action would be to ban man-carrying aircraft from the lower (say) 3,000 feet AGL anywhere outside an ATZ. Do we *really* want to go there?
€0.03 supplied,
PDR
*A friend of mine does this commercially and has taken hours of footage of migrating birds in flight in africa and the various upper layers of rainforests for academic researchers and film/TV companies
** We've had cases of multicopters being used to take water, food, pocket-warmers and survival blankets to people trapped in bad weather on the moors or on cliff ledges where the mist was far too clagged in to consider flying a helicopter to them
*** [this footnote intentionally left blank]
****Perhaps two or even three Arbies Steak Sandwiches - not something I normally risk lightly
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One reason for the 400 ft altitude limit and line of sight with drone at all times is to keep them clear of aircraft. Pilots use "See and be seen" to avoid other aircraft. Drone operators can not easily judge exactly how the drone altitude compares with a much larger aircraft so must stay below altitudes they normally use. The occasional helicopter that might fly lower can be avoided at ease.
I agree that the rogue operators will always be a problem because they don't follow any rules. Don't let them ruin it for the rest of us.
I agree that the rogue operators will always be a problem because they don't follow any rules. Don't let them ruin it for the rest of us.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There is a military low-flying corridor that passes over chez G-CPTN.
The area was flooded last weekend, and at the height of the flood, a guy turned up with a quadricopter that he had 'just bought' (for £1500).
It was fitted with a camera that was connected to the iPhone on the 'controller' so that you could see what the camera saw.
The guy remarked (not bragging, just stating 'fact') that it would operate up to 1500 metres (high), and he flew it at least half a mile away (as the crow flies) to hover over the flooded properties on the other side of the river.
Video subsequently appeared on the website of the local newspaper.
The area was flooded last weekend, and at the height of the flood, a guy turned up with a quadricopter that he had 'just bought' (for £1500).
It was fitted with a camera that was connected to the iPhone on the 'controller' so that you could see what the camera saw.
The guy remarked (not bragging, just stating 'fact') that it would operate up to 1500 metres (high), and he flew it at least half a mile away (as the crow flies) to hover over the flooded properties on the other side of the river.
Video subsequently appeared on the website of the local newspaper.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the simple answer is that there clearly isn't any problem other than humans inability to correctly assess risk.
Airplanes Hit More Turtles Than Drones | Popular Science
But please don't let science and statistics get in the way of the anti drone crusade......
Airplanes Hit More Turtles Than Drones | Popular Science
But please don't let science and statistics get in the way of the anti drone crusade......
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the U.K., in 2015, up to September, 15 Airprox reports have been filed involving 'drones'. One report involved a B757, doing 250kts in class 'A' airspace at 5000' to the west of Macclesfield. The CPA (closest point of approach), was estimated to be 150' (vertically). These filed reports are the encounters that are known about, there are likely to be others. Quite rightly, The Guild Of Air Traffic Controllers, (GATCO), is rather concerned about the proliferation of RPAS.
Last edited by ZOOKER; 19th Dec 2015 at 12:02.