Drones threatening commercial a/c?
You may laugh at the turtle-strike risk, but given that we all know the world is a disk supported on a large stack of turtles (the whole "spheroid ball floating in an infinite universe" thing having obviously been shown to be NASA propaganda to assure the funding they needed to fake the moon landings) any turtle collision could risk destabilising the stack and the ending of the world as we know it. Fox News would see this as almost as serious threat as democrats.
But more seriously - in a nation which has schoolyard massacres every other month due to it's refusal to properly address its fire-arms fetish, spending time and money regulating the yet-to-materialise potential threat posed by "drones" is clearly populist twaddle. More of the general public have been killed or injured by light aircraft than by "drones", so clearly the first step should be to ban general aviation.
You know it makes sense.
PDR
But more seriously - in a nation which has schoolyard massacres every other month due to it's refusal to properly address its fire-arms fetish, spending time and money regulating the yet-to-materialise potential threat posed by "drones" is clearly populist twaddle. More of the general public have been killed or injured by light aircraft than by "drones", so clearly the first step should be to ban general aviation.
You know it makes sense.
PDR
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: US
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Registration is going to do absolutely nothing other than be a cost and inconvenience for safe and law abiding drone users. Anyone that wants to use a drone to do harm or fly in a restricted airspace is going to build their own and ignore the registration requirement.
Before anyone jumps to, "we need to restrict the sale of drone parts!", it's not gonna work. The parts are cheap and readily available. All you need to build one are some electric motors, a battery, an RC transmitter & receiver, and a flight control board, oh, and some open source software. Keep in mind, the pioneers of hobby drones used the remote control from your kid's Nintendo Wii connected with a simple off the shelf board for their flight control boards!
The only thing excessive and pointless regulation is going to do at this point is prevent the advancement of drone technology for beneficial and commercial uses.
Before anyone jumps to, "we need to restrict the sale of drone parts!", it's not gonna work. The parts are cheap and readily available. All you need to build one are some electric motors, a battery, an RC transmitter & receiver, and a flight control board, oh, and some open source software. Keep in mind, the pioneers of hobby drones used the remote control from your kid's Nintendo Wii connected with a simple off the shelf board for their flight control boards!
The only thing excessive and pointless regulation is going to do at this point is prevent the advancement of drone technology for beneficial and commercial uses.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the advancement of drone technology for beneficial and commercial use"
Good observation PDJ, so how did we progress from interglacial cave-dwellers to our present state without this?
Good observation PDJ, so how did we progress from interglacial cave-dwellers to our present state without this?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpine ski star Marcel Hirscher nearly taken out by a drone - Dec 22, 2015
From NBC sports article on a World Cup ski race in Italy titled:
VIDEO: Skier Marcel Hirscher nearly hit by falling drone |
The drone was being used to video the race for TV.
Marcel Hirscher nearly hit by falling drone camera in slalom run (video)
VIDEO: Skier Marcel Hirscher nearly hit by falling drone |
The world’s best Alpine skier was nearly taken out by a drone camera in the middle of a slalom run Tuesday night.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Yikes. After looking at it from a number of angles from different sources, it seems the whole drone (not just the camera, as per the NBC headline) just dropped straight down out of the sky. The rotors appear to still be turning when it hits the ground. He appears to be very lucky it missed him.
about how dangerous and unregulated these things
https://www.casa.gov.au/operations/s...d-aircraft-rpa
I believe the UK is also strict.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: hkg
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My apologies for my lack of clarity. It's true they are regulated in a number of countries, HK included.
Civil Aviation Department - Guidelines on Operations of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
From what I've seen here however, there is little to no enforcement of any of these rules, particularly the VLOS one.
Example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvVu3qfADgw
And these things are on sale everywhere - toy stores and hobby stores all over the place. It's only a matter of time before something goes badly wrong, IMO.
Civil Aviation Department - Guidelines on Operations of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
From what I've seen here however, there is little to no enforcement of any of these rules, particularly the VLOS one.
Example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvVu3qfADgw
And these things are on sale everywhere - toy stores and hobby stores all over the place. It's only a matter of time before something goes badly wrong, IMO.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus,
It appears from media reports that this drone was fully licensed and operating accordingly. Still this near miss happened. This puts the incident into another, to me more severe, category than thrill seeking toy drone operators.
EDIT: Please let me explain. A toy drone operator near-missing an aircraft might conceivably think of his drone as relatively unharmful. After all, he may have seen videos of airplanes subjected to birdstrike tests in certification, and may have the impression that an airplane is somewhat robust.
Whereas an operator flying a drone over a racecourse, presumably with spectators close by without any form of protection, surely must be acutely aware of the risk to unsuspecting third parties his operation entails. I'm not downplaying the risk of drones to commercial aviation, but there is an equal risk to other unsuspecting people as shown here.
EDIT: Please let me explain. A toy drone operator near-missing an aircraft might conceivably think of his drone as relatively unharmful. After all, he may have seen videos of airplanes subjected to birdstrike tests in certification, and may have the impression that an airplane is somewhat robust.
Whereas an operator flying a drone over a racecourse, presumably with spectators close by without any form of protection, surely must be acutely aware of the risk to unsuspecting third parties his operation entails. I'm not downplaying the risk of drones to commercial aviation, but there is an equal risk to other unsuspecting people as shown here.
Last edited by snowfalcon2; 23rd Dec 2015 at 07:11.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was listening to a recent TV report about what the UK is considering about regulation. Stable door & horses comes t mind, but late is better than never. One thought comes to mind. Regulation is one thing, but identification is another. If people are flying drones in open residential space and they cause damage, or even cause a car crash what happens to identify the owner/operator? Imagine the ski crash happening on a motorway. Are drone carrying serial numbers which are registered on a central data base at purchase? Surely, if something is operating remotely, with a strong change of causing an offence, be it social disturbance or damage, then the operator should be identifiable.
Regulation without the ability to follow it up is ineffective.
Regulation without the ability to follow it up is ineffective.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serious question.
Why are you all so concerned about drones?
Yes they have the potential to cause accidents.
So what?
A million things are a higher risk but we ignore them.
Statistics show that drones which have been around for years now have so far caused absolutely no accidents whatsoever to civil aircraft.
Everything has risk.
Intelligent people concentrate on the high risks first.
Americans have guns.
Guns can be shot at aircraft.
guns are shot at aircraft.
Are guns regulated?
Cessnas (other puddle jumpers are available!) flown by PPLs have a long history of killing airliners and people on the ground.
If they are allowed to continue, they will kill more people.
They are entirely for the entertainment of those on board.
Should we ban them?
People need to get a life and accept risks, particularly vanishingly small ones.
Why are you all so concerned about drones?
Yes they have the potential to cause accidents.
So what?
A million things are a higher risk but we ignore them.
Statistics show that drones which have been around for years now have so far caused absolutely no accidents whatsoever to civil aircraft.
Everything has risk.
Intelligent people concentrate on the high risks first.
Americans have guns.
Guns can be shot at aircraft.
guns are shot at aircraft.
Are guns regulated?
Cessnas (other puddle jumpers are available!) flown by PPLs have a long history of killing airliners and people on the ground.
If they are allowed to continue, they will kill more people.
They are entirely for the entertainment of those on board.
Should we ban them?
People need to get a life and accept risks, particularly vanishingly small ones.
Last edited by Tourist; 23rd Dec 2015 at 12:21.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
we are accustomed to a "minimize risk" environment. It is hard to argue that UAVs pose "no risk".
Your blunt statement is...true. It is about relative risk - how one dangerous thing compares to another dangerous thing. You cannot fight all battles - pick the ones that matter.
Imagine the horror when motor vehicles became available! ANYONE could go get one. You had to have a flag man walk ahead of you (the government's feeble attempt to use railroad rules to control the automotive dangers).
Society learned, to a point, to cope with this invention. People continue to kill themselves and others with it. It is acceptable to society. Not banned or outlawed. Controlled - but not even to the best of its abilities (we could mandate self-driving-capable car technology, so that technology could overrule driver input, when the latter is stupid or dangerous). We choose to use this with very, very much restraint (stability systems etc., but no automatic limiter to speed limits, for example).
Good post, Tourist.
we are accustomed to a "minimize risk" environment. It is hard to argue that UAVs pose "no risk".
Your blunt statement is...true. It is about relative risk - how one dangerous thing compares to another dangerous thing. You cannot fight all battles - pick the ones that matter.
Imagine the horror when motor vehicles became available! ANYONE could go get one. You had to have a flag man walk ahead of you (the government's feeble attempt to use railroad rules to control the automotive dangers).
Society learned, to a point, to cope with this invention. People continue to kill themselves and others with it. It is acceptable to society. Not banned or outlawed. Controlled - but not even to the best of its abilities (we could mandate self-driving-capable car technology, so that technology could overrule driver input, when the latter is stupid or dangerous). We choose to use this with very, very much restraint (stability systems etc., but no automatic limiter to speed limits, for example).
Good post, Tourist.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Myth busting: Luddites were not against new technology because it was new, it was because the technology introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace them with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are missing the point, and quoting Luddism is not relevant. No-one is against the correct use of the technology. It is a brilliant invention and has some extraordinary uses, many could be life saving in sending recede drones before an assault (military) and in a search & rescue roll (civil) You could send up a squadron of GPS autopilot controlled camera drones to grid search an area, be it for lost climbers or even at sea for a missing boat. Absolutely excellent. Also monitor a crash scene on a motorway to help the logistics for the attending services.
Equally you can go to any toy shop and buy a toy and cause severe injury even death. Read #436. Did this drone crash due to technical failure or operator error. Now imagine some muppet flies one over a motorway in the same way people stand on bridges to gawp at the traffic. They lose control or it fails and there is a multi-car pile up. It was not a certified a/c operated by a licensed operator in a safety critical public place. What would your reaction be if your family was in one of the cars? What would your reaction be if some muppet had drop a concrete block off a bridge, same result. (it has happened). What's the difference? Surely you would like to trace the culprit. There is no registration number on a concrete block but there could/should be on drones, surely.
This is not an argument isolated to drones v a/c.
People continue to kill themselves and others with it cars.
Yes, but you can identify by whom.
I can guarantee the first time severe injury or death is caused by a toy drone there will a clamour for registration/regulation. We are in an industry that is supposed to be proactive in accident consideration, not reactive.
Equally you can go to any toy shop and buy a toy and cause severe injury even death. Read #436. Did this drone crash due to technical failure or operator error. Now imagine some muppet flies one over a motorway in the same way people stand on bridges to gawp at the traffic. They lose control or it fails and there is a multi-car pile up. It was not a certified a/c operated by a licensed operator in a safety critical public place. What would your reaction be if your family was in one of the cars? What would your reaction be if some muppet had drop a concrete block off a bridge, same result. (it has happened). What's the difference? Surely you would like to trace the culprit. There is no registration number on a concrete block but there could/should be on drones, surely.
This is not an argument isolated to drones v a/c.
People continue to kill themselves and others with it cars.
Yes, but you can identify by whom.
I can guarantee the first time severe injury or death is caused by a toy drone there will a clamour for registration/regulation. We are in an industry that is supposed to be proactive in accident consideration, not reactive.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How strange that many people who are against drones which fly themselves around without highly trained well paid pilots are in fact highly trained well paid pilots....
Fancy that?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's be honest there is lots of knee jerk reaction despite the fact there has been nothing to react to yet!
The drone crashing on the ski slope was a professional camera drone. I am willing to bet it was operating in a regulated manner, yet still it crashed.
A bit like when regulated helicopters carrying cameras crash really.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist: I'm not concentrating on 'regulated' drones & 'regulated' operators: I'm concentrating on being able to identify who owned the drone that causes damage or worse.I'm talking about registration. That does not mean their use is restricted in any unreasonable manner; it just means you know which muppets are using them after they've crashed & burned somewhere they shouldn't.
Let's be honest there is lots of knee jerk reaction despite the fact there has been nothing to react to yet!
I don't think you can react in a 'knee jerk' manner before anything has happened: by definition. Being proactive, after sensible considerations about possibilities, is something quite different. It is what many of us in aviation do on a daily basis. If we did not do so the victim public would castigate us for not doing so.
Let's be honest there is lots of knee jerk reaction despite the fact there has been nothing to react to yet!
I don't think you can react in a 'knee jerk' manner before anything has happened: by definition. Being proactive, after sensible considerations about possibilities, is something quite different. It is what many of us in aviation do on a daily basis. If we did not do so the victim public would castigate us for not doing so.
