Drones threatening commercial a/c?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A UK NATS video of the impact a drone had on Gatwick traffic in July;
https://vimeo.com/228662010
Just work out the cost of this one incident
https://vimeo.com/228662010
Just work out the cost of this one incident
I'd question that NATS video and the aircraft tracks depicted. They look generic, to be honest.
Also, a timely incident for the CAA on home turf around the same time as they release their report on drone collisions. Are they going to do this (stop all movements) every time there's a sighting in future? I doubt it.
Yes, shame on the fool for flying their drone so close to Gatwick. They should be punished accordingly. But making such a hoohah about it to reinforce your argument that you want more restrictions on Phantoms and Mavics, I would argue, actually weakens your case.
Also, a timely incident for the CAA on home turf around the same time as they release their report on drone collisions. Are they going to do this (stop all movements) every time there's a sighting in future? I doubt it.
Yes, shame on the fool for flying their drone so close to Gatwick. They should be punished accordingly. But making such a hoohah about it to reinforce your argument that you want more restrictions on Phantoms and Mavics, I would argue, actually weakens your case.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Torquay UK
Age: 95
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 20 years ago a "responsively flown" small model aircraft flew into a hanglider at
Devils Dyke Brighton uk
Th Hanglider pilot was killed.
The Police and CAA decided to take no action against the model flier.
I dont fly hangliders now, but I do fly Microlights.
I dont suppose Military "drones" will be stopped, but I would sure as hell like all other such devices to be shut down
Devils Dyke Brighton uk
Th Hanglider pilot was killed.
The Police and CAA decided to take no action against the model flier.
I dont fly hangliders now, but I do fly Microlights.
I dont suppose Military "drones" will be stopped, but I would sure as hell like all other such devices to be shut down
Come on Wilyflier, more details would be appreciated if you're going to use that one incident from 20 years ago. What height? Designated and well known hang gliding area? Perhaps the hang glider flew over a known model aircraft strip and clubhouse that he should've read up on before taking flight?
If this all happened 20yrs ago with a responsible model aircraft flyer, I'd say short of just not flying his model that day, there was nothing else he could have done to prevent a collision with a hang glider.
Life is full of risks. A woman was killed in London by being knocked down by a cyclist with no front brakes. He was cleared recently. There's no talk of banning bikes nor banning bikes cycled by irresponsible cyclists etc and yet cyclists and pedestrians mingle many more times per day than a drone is flown up into the air.
Have you read the CAA commissioned report into Drone collisions? It's linked above. Talk about starting with your answer and working out how to get there. Vested interests are trying to shut this hobby down for, well, their own vested interests.
It's no coincidence that the US military have stated they've ordered their members to not use DJI products. Also, they will shoot down any drones they see flying close to their installations (apparently, from cyber fears that the Chinese could then hack what the pilot recorded)
This clampdown is not about safety and a Phantom hitting a 320 at 140kts.
If this all happened 20yrs ago with a responsible model aircraft flyer, I'd say short of just not flying his model that day, there was nothing else he could have done to prevent a collision with a hang glider.
Life is full of risks. A woman was killed in London by being knocked down by a cyclist with no front brakes. He was cleared recently. There's no talk of banning bikes nor banning bikes cycled by irresponsible cyclists etc and yet cyclists and pedestrians mingle many more times per day than a drone is flown up into the air.
Have you read the CAA commissioned report into Drone collisions? It's linked above. Talk about starting with your answer and working out how to get there. Vested interests are trying to shut this hobby down for, well, their own vested interests.
It's no coincidence that the US military have stated they've ordered their members to not use DJI products. Also, they will shoot down any drones they see flying close to their installations (apparently, from cyber fears that the Chinese could then hack what the pilot recorded)
This clampdown is not about safety and a Phantom hitting a 320 at 140kts.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Delete me
Age: 58
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on Wilyflier, more details would be appreciated if you're going to use that one incident from 20 years ago. What height? Designated and well known hang gliding area? Perhaps the hang glider flew over a known model aircraft strip and clubhouse that he should've read up on before taking flight?
THRILL SEEKERS DICING WITH DEATH AT THE DYKE (From The Argus)
Less than a year after June 1986 ;
"...fatal accident less than a year later, when he collided with a radio-controlled model aeroplane. Within weeks, the Southern Hang-gliding Club voted to create a special "exclusion zone" to keep hang-gliders away from model plane fliers. Members agreed not to fly below 250ft in the North Bowl area of the Dyke - a rule which has been adhered to ever since."
Wow, interesting.
There you go.
I'm not having a go at anyone. It just annoys me when 'regulatory bodies' come out with their catch-all 'it's for safety'
and people just accept it.
I'll say this again. It is not to protect John and Patricia Smith coming back from their holidays. That's simply a by-product of the legislation they're trying to bring in.
There you go.
I'm not having a go at anyone. It just annoys me when 'regulatory bodies' come out with their catch-all 'it's for safety'
and people just accept it. I'll say this again. It is not to protect John and Patricia Smith coming back from their holidays. That's simply a by-product of the legislation they're trying to bring in.
On a point of accuracy, shortly after the Devil's Dyke accident, the British Model Flying Association, in conjunction with the BHPA, issued a Code of Practice for the shared use of sites by model aircraft and hang gliders/paragliders, which has enabled safe use of sites by both sports since then.
On a point of accuracy, shortly after the Devil's Dyke accident, the British Model Flying Association, in conjunction with the BHPA, issued a Code of Practice for the shared use of sites by model aircraft and hang gliders/paragliders, which has enabled safe use of sites by both sports since then.
Come on Wilyflier, more details would be appreciated if you're going to use that one incident from 20 years ago. What height? Designated and well known hang gliding area? Perhaps the hang glider flew over a known model aircraft strip and clubhouse that he should've read up on before taking flight?
If this all happened 20yrs ago with a responsible model aircraft flyer, I'd say short of just not flying his model that day, there was nothing else he could have done to prevent a collision with a hang glider.
If this all happened 20yrs ago with a responsible model aircraft flyer, I'd say short of just not flying his model that day, there was nothing else he could have done to prevent a collision with a hang glider.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: oxford
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly the issue of drones is complicated, and no single "solution" is going to solve potential conflicts. If I don't miss my guess, the solutions to the great majority of these issues will come about through pressure on manufacturers to install technical limits, be it "geo-fencing", soft-failure when comms are lost etc, combined with a licensing system for the larger drones.
A measure I'd like to see is manufacturers being compelled to "life" the software that controls them, that way periodic and unavoidable software updates could be used either to introduce new limits on their flight-envelope, or indeed could render a drone permamently grounded if it enters controlled airspace, for example.
Some back-and-forth telemetry would be helpful here so that a misused drone would effectively report itself for entering controlled airspace, identify the licensed owner and ground itself until the issue was resolved.
Currently, as far as drones are concerned, we're in a situation akin to that of commercial aviation in the 1920's and 30's, where technical advances were creating new problems at a faster rate than the legislators could deal with. Aircraft aviation survived and thrived despite this, and in turn we'll lean to live with drones as the legislation matures to contend with the them.
There is, no doubt a certain attrition-rate of drones in private/clueless hands, and so it's reasonable to suppose that within a short number of years the great majority of the currently umlimited drones will no longer be flyable.
The trick is going to be legislating without clobbering other spheres of UAV's- eg RC model flying, (which has an excellent safety record) as "collateral damage" in dealing with the muppets flying drones close to commercial traffic....
A measure I'd like to see is manufacturers being compelled to "life" the software that controls them, that way periodic and unavoidable software updates could be used either to introduce new limits on their flight-envelope, or indeed could render a drone permamently grounded if it enters controlled airspace, for example.
Some back-and-forth telemetry would be helpful here so that a misused drone would effectively report itself for entering controlled airspace, identify the licensed owner and ground itself until the issue was resolved.
Currently, as far as drones are concerned, we're in a situation akin to that of commercial aviation in the 1920's and 30's, where technical advances were creating new problems at a faster rate than the legislators could deal with. Aircraft aviation survived and thrived despite this, and in turn we'll lean to live with drones as the legislation matures to contend with the them.
There is, no doubt a certain attrition-rate of drones in private/clueless hands, and so it's reasonable to suppose that within a short number of years the great majority of the currently umlimited drones will no longer be flyable.
The trick is going to be legislating without clobbering other spheres of UAV's- eg RC model flying, (which has an excellent safety record) as "collateral damage" in dealing with the muppets flying drones close to commercial traffic....
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all depends who you want to stop. The 'drone' user with more money than sense whose sole exposure to news is MTV buys a drone then plays with it with no comprehension of any legal limitations or requirements. OR The drone user who is technically capable and malicious. The first is easy in multiple ways such as those you propose. The malicious technically capable user will not be prevented as they will immediately work around any attempts at jamming or geofencing. Imagine a rooted smart phone being used for communications, navigation and video feed.
A lot more realistic thought needs to be given to how to deal with these issues.
A lot more realistic thought needs to be given to how to deal with these issues.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: oxford
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think that the "greatest good for the greatest number" applies here. The simple fact is that no legislation or technical approach is going to forestall all possible malicious use of light-aircraft/gliders/drones/rc models.
However, if we can exclude the ignorant/clueless from operating drones in conflict with commercial traffic, a great deal of progress will have been made. So keeping drones away from airfields and out of controlled airspace should be the immediate priority; and the previously mentioned measures would take of, in time, the great majority of such "mischievious" (albeit hideously irresponsible) near-misses.
As far as the "malicious technically capable user" goes, once the issue has been reduced to contending with these individuals only, it's more easily dealt with by bringing standard Police methods one the craft is brought down. If modifying a drone to permit it to be flown in controlled airspace were then a specific offence, then these - relatively rare individuals - can be dealt with as a manageable problem.
We need to bear in mind though, that whilst distracting and potentially dangerous, they're rather less dangerous, statisically, than light-aircraft blundering into controlled airspace. I once had the bejezus scared out of me by of all things a helium-filled greyish party-balloon, which flashed past within inchess of my Pa28 before my brain could process what it was. Silly now, but at the time it frightened me fartless.
In short, measures to ameliorate the "drone problem" will come, but it's merely one of a number of distracting/dangerous unexpected things we can collide with, from birds, balloons, drones, light aircraft upwards; so it's probably worth keeping a sense of proportion about them.
What I fond more interesting, in the light of Solly Sullenberger's ditching, is how ETOP's has skewed the percieved risks of such collisions. When 4 engines was the norm, the loss of a single engine was not overtly serious, but now, as no-one apparantly foresaw that Geese might fly in formations sufficient to stop two engines, the airline industry has become rather more alert about anything that can be ingested and which might suddenly make 50% - or more - of their engines nauseous or worse. Hence the current 'attack of the vapours' over drones, I suspect.
However, if we can exclude the ignorant/clueless from operating drones in conflict with commercial traffic, a great deal of progress will have been made. So keeping drones away from airfields and out of controlled airspace should be the immediate priority; and the previously mentioned measures would take of, in time, the great majority of such "mischievious" (albeit hideously irresponsible) near-misses.
As far as the "malicious technically capable user" goes, once the issue has been reduced to contending with these individuals only, it's more easily dealt with by bringing standard Police methods one the craft is brought down. If modifying a drone to permit it to be flown in controlled airspace were then a specific offence, then these - relatively rare individuals - can be dealt with as a manageable problem.
We need to bear in mind though, that whilst distracting and potentially dangerous, they're rather less dangerous, statisically, than light-aircraft blundering into controlled airspace. I once had the bejezus scared out of me by of all things a helium-filled greyish party-balloon, which flashed past within inchess of my Pa28 before my brain could process what it was. Silly now, but at the time it frightened me fartless.
In short, measures to ameliorate the "drone problem" will come, but it's merely one of a number of distracting/dangerous unexpected things we can collide with, from birds, balloons, drones, light aircraft upwards; so it's probably worth keeping a sense of proportion about them.
What I fond more interesting, in the light of Solly Sullenberger's ditching, is how ETOP's has skewed the percieved risks of such collisions. When 4 engines was the norm, the loss of a single engine was not overtly serious, but now, as no-one apparantly foresaw that Geese might fly in formations sufficient to stop two engines, the airline industry has become rather more alert about anything that can be ingested and which might suddenly make 50% - or more - of their engines nauseous or worse. Hence the current 'attack of the vapours' over drones, I suspect.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: somewhere near an airport
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts