Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Drones threatening commercial a/c?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Drones threatening commercial a/c?

Closed Thread

Old 27th Nov 2014, 00:53
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 71
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.
Peter G-W is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2014, 01:23
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,927
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.
lomapaseo is online now  
Old 27th Nov 2014, 01:49
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 66
Posts: 361
12,000 gun related deaths per year in the US and you're going to pass legislation to effectively control drones???

Last edited by WingNut60; 27th Nov 2014 at 02:57.
WingNut60 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2014, 03:16
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,137
Danger Paraglider Winching to 2500' on the downwind leg



Les Ailes Québécoises ? Forum de discussions
RatherBeFlying is online now  
Old 27th Nov 2014, 06:02
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
It's the same as all the hysteria about [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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.

Last edited by Tourist; 27th Nov 2014 at 07:45.
Tourist is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2014, 07:53
  #66 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 664
Going commercial now

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

GoPro Developing Line of Consumer Drones - WSJ
Mark in CA is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2014, 09:47
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,421
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.
Capot is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2014, 10:20
  #68 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 664
And this from yesterday's Washington Post:

Near-collisions between drones, airliners surge, new FAA reports show - The Washington Post

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.
Mark in CA is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2014, 13:24
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
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.
Tourist is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2014, 17:02
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,421
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.
Capot is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2014, 17:10
  #71 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 72
Posts: 2,705
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.
Herod is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2014, 18:48
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,927
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.
lomapaseo is online now  
Old 27th Nov 2014, 19:29
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 505
If I ever saw a troll, “tourist” gets pretty close
deptrai is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2014, 20:21
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Uk
Posts: 17
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...
Bravo Zulu is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2014, 20:31
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 66
Posts: 361
It's not a completely new problem

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.
WingNut60 is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2014, 11:47
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
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.
Tourist is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2014, 12:26
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,421
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.
Capot is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2014, 17:36
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 68
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.
donotdespisethesnake is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2014, 19:08
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,421
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.

Last edited by Capot; 28th Nov 2014 at 19:28.
Capot is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2014, 20:01
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
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?
Tourist is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service