Drone strike
I expect this thread will have attracted the attention of a fair number of sensible model aviators so the following may be of interest:
Drone ban over London and Windsor during Obama visit
Drones will be banned from flying between 9pm on Thursday (21st April I guess) and 10.30am on Sunday over a large part of London, from Purley in the south to Haringey in the north.
Restrictions are in place for the skies between Windsor and London on Friday - when the Obamas will join the Queen for lunch at Windsor Castle the day after her 90th birthday celebrations - and between Stansted airport and London on Thursday night and Sunday morning.
The regulations prohibit aircraft - including drones - from flying below 762 metres (2,500 feet) within the specified areas unless they are using Heathrow, Stansted or London City airports, London Heliport, RAF Northolt or are being operated by the emergency services.
Pilots of other aircraft wanting to fly in the restricted areas must seek permission from the Metropolitan Police.
Drone ban over London and Windsor during Obama visit
Drones will be banned from flying between 9pm on Thursday (21st April I guess) and 10.30am on Sunday over a large part of London, from Purley in the south to Haringey in the north.
Restrictions are in place for the skies between Windsor and London on Friday - when the Obamas will join the Queen for lunch at Windsor Castle the day after her 90th birthday celebrations - and between Stansted airport and London on Thursday night and Sunday morning.
The regulations prohibit aircraft - including drones - from flying below 762 metres (2,500 feet) within the specified areas unless they are using Heathrow, Stansted or London City airports, London Heliport, RAF Northolt or are being operated by the emergency services.
Pilots of other aircraft wanting to fly in the restricted areas must seek permission from the Metropolitan Police.
I then observe than of this set of risks the risk of drone-collision has a lower probability of "bad ****" than many other risks which have no been subject to extreme regulatory controls (pilot fatigue and pilot mental stability being the obvious examples).
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Humans are particularly bad at assessing probabilities and risks. It is an absolute certainty that at some stage in the future a fully laden A380 (or similar large passenger aircraft) will crash with massive loss of life. In fact the odds are far higher than an aircraft colliding with a drone, or said drone being the initiator of the crash.
Do we ban passenger transport on large jets? Of course not.
The fact is, we take a calculated risk every time we step aboard an aircraft or any other vehicle. The chances of being killed in a collision on the way to an airport are far higher than being killed aboard an airliner, but people are still prepared to drive.
At the moment the record stands at airliners 1, drones 0. That is a one hundred percent success rate in favour of the larger aircraft. There is absolutely no supporting evidence the other way, although there is a calculable, non zero, probability that a drone could potentially damage an airliner so as to cause a crash.
Better to worry about things that matter like looking both ways before crossing the road.
Do we ban passenger transport on large jets? Of course not.
The fact is, we take a calculated risk every time we step aboard an aircraft or any other vehicle. The chances of being killed in a collision on the way to an airport are far higher than being killed aboard an airliner, but people are still prepared to drive.
At the moment the record stands at airliners 1, drones 0. That is a one hundred percent success rate in favour of the larger aircraft. There is absolutely no supporting evidence the other way, although there is a calculable, non zero, probability that a drone could potentially damage an airliner so as to cause a crash.
Better to worry about things that matter like looking both ways before crossing the road.
Pilot mental stability has a non-zero accident history (German wings, Egyptair 990, probably MH370 to name but three). It demonstrably has a higher probability of causing "bad ****" than a drone strike. So if we aren't mandating annual pilot metal health checks I suggest we're saying we don't need any more drone legislation either, as both risks are clearly within the tolerable threshold.
The FAA have done a classic "knee jerk" by introducing "drone registration" - each drone must carry the registration number of its owner/operator. Perhaps one of you could ask the flight-deck crew of yesterday's A320 whether they would have been able to read the registration numbers in 10mm-high font as it whizzed towards them at ~180mph? To be honest I'm actually surprised that they could even have determined it was a drone in the very brief time between becoming visible and smacking against the fuselage!
PDR
Originally Posted by PDR1
So if we aren't mandating annual pilot metal health checks
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there's general agreement between the pilot community and the drone flying community that civilian drones and people-carrying aircraft should not fly in the same airspace (at least until both have sophisticated anti-collision systems).
There are a few aggressive drone flyers who seem to feel they will fly where they like (over neighbour's gardens, in suburban areas, etc) but most are considerate. Some of the aggressive drone pilots will insist that a drone striking an aircraft isn't proved to be a risk : do they want a smoking hole in the ground?
There are a few pilots who want all drones banned but most just want to limit/avoid the risk of sharing airspace with drones.
There are a few pilots (in my limited experience these are helicopter pilots) who like to fly regularly below 400'; as a drone pilot, this makes me nervous; it gives me little time to react.
There's probably more that regulatory authorities could do to raise awareness in the piloting community. Drone manufacturers could put a big sign at the top of the drone box which you'll see the moment you open it highlighting key national rules.
It will calm down.
There are a few aggressive drone flyers who seem to feel they will fly where they like (over neighbour's gardens, in suburban areas, etc) but most are considerate. Some of the aggressive drone pilots will insist that a drone striking an aircraft isn't proved to be a risk : do they want a smoking hole in the ground?
There are a few pilots who want all drones banned but most just want to limit/avoid the risk of sharing airspace with drones.
There are a few pilots (in my limited experience these are helicopter pilots) who like to fly regularly below 400'; as a drone pilot, this makes me nervous; it gives me little time to react.
There's probably more that regulatory authorities could do to raise awareness in the piloting community. Drone manufacturers could put a big sign at the top of the drone box which you'll see the moment you open it highlighting key national rules.
It will calm down.
It will calm down.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The flight landed at Heathrow Terminal 5 safely and was inspected by BA engineers. There was no damage found to the aircraft."
Whether this means no evidence of a collision or simply no damage warranting repair I'm not sure, but it could be the source of the rumours.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is also the possibility that after the collision with the aircraft, the RPAS 'residue' falls to Earth and seriously injures persons or causes damage to property on the surface. Pedestrians, vehicle windscreens, conservatory roofs etc.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I operate a kit-built aerial photography quadcopter in the 1.5kg range and whenever flying I operate under the assumption that it might fall out the sky at any moment. This means never flying over anyone or anything which might be injured or damaged in a crash and a careful risk/benefit analysis in terms of what images I'm going to capture before operating it over an area where uncontrolled descent could result in a total loss of the craft, ie. tall trees, water etc.
IMHO anyone who doesn't follow this line of thought is foolish in the extreme, but sadly Youtube serves as proof that a lot of people would disagree.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somewhat larger lumps fall off aircraft on a regular basis including stowaways.
The impacted drone may have survived the encounter (unlikely), was completely disintegrated (probable), ingested by an engine and atomised without causing any damage (possible), or bits fluttered to the ground over open countryside without causing damage (likely).
The lumps of ice, biological remains and metallic parts that fall from aircraft present a higher risk, particularly on approach paths to landing.
The impacted drone may have survived the encounter (unlikely), was completely disintegrated (probable), ingested by an engine and atomised without causing any damage (possible), or bits fluttered to the ground over open countryside without causing damage (likely).
The lumps of ice, biological remains and metallic parts that fall from aircraft present a higher risk, particularly on approach paths to landing.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Struggling to find a web-site containing information on the co-efficient of flutterability for say, Lithium batteries or a 'Go-Pro' camera?
Ingested by an engine..........Well that's all right then, nothing to worry about.
Ingested by an engine..........Well that's all right then, nothing to worry about.
Last edited by ZOOKER; 19th Apr 2016 at 18:22.
Eight pages of outrage and yet the basic premise justifying the outrage has not been demonstrated. How about we all refrain from demonising drones and their controllers until someone proves that there has been, or even that there is likely to be, a collision between a drone and an aircraft? And no, I don't own a drone.
Last edited by Bull at a Gate; 20th Apr 2016 at 21:32.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am probably one of the very few people on this planet who have actually brought down an aircraft with a drone (RC model).
I was flying a scale RC aircraft on the runway of an airfield after hours (with permission of the airfield authority). At the same time a hot air balloon took of at the other end of the runway, more than 1800 m away. The wind was blowing in the runway axis and I was doing circuits. My maximum altitude was probably less than 100ft in downwind. RC scale aircraft are difficult to fly and you cannot let one out of your sight for more than a second or two.
I saw the hot air balloon (about 100ft diameter) coming in low over the runway and tried to make my downwind even lower. I thought I was going to pass well clear of the balloon, but because of optical illusion (100ft balloon against 5ft wingspan of my RC model) I managed to hit it right in the middle of the envelope. There was a tear in the envelope, my model came down in a spin and the balloon descended slowly and managed an emergency landing remaining clear of the surrounding buildings.
Obviously the balloon pilot and his passenger came to meet me and ask questions. It was clear that there were no bad intentions whatsoever and the passenger was an old instructor of mine. My insurance paid for the repair of the balloon, several thousands. Obviously this could have been much worse if the envelope would have opened further.
This happened over thirty years ago, in over fifty years of flying, I have never put even a scratch on any of the aircraft or passengers. I cannot begin to imagine what damage a drone would to if it hit my windscreen at 180 kts.
I was flying a scale RC aircraft on the runway of an airfield after hours (with permission of the airfield authority). At the same time a hot air balloon took of at the other end of the runway, more than 1800 m away. The wind was blowing in the runway axis and I was doing circuits. My maximum altitude was probably less than 100ft in downwind. RC scale aircraft are difficult to fly and you cannot let one out of your sight for more than a second or two.
I saw the hot air balloon (about 100ft diameter) coming in low over the runway and tried to make my downwind even lower. I thought I was going to pass well clear of the balloon, but because of optical illusion (100ft balloon against 5ft wingspan of my RC model) I managed to hit it right in the middle of the envelope. There was a tear in the envelope, my model came down in a spin and the balloon descended slowly and managed an emergency landing remaining clear of the surrounding buildings.
Obviously the balloon pilot and his passenger came to meet me and ask questions. It was clear that there were no bad intentions whatsoever and the passenger was an old instructor of mine. My insurance paid for the repair of the balloon, several thousands. Obviously this could have been much worse if the envelope would have opened further.
This happened over thirty years ago, in over fifty years of flying, I have never put even a scratch on any of the aircraft or passengers. I cannot begin to imagine what damage a drone would to if it hit my windscreen at 180 kts.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In The Daily Telegraph 'letters' last Saturday was this contribution. Is it correct?
'Bandit Drones.'
"A drone flight made over a garden was already illegal. Drones are regulated by CAA (UK) under ANO and unlicensed drones are prohibited from flying over property or people." Chris Attwell...Bristol.
I'm only the messenger. Hold your fire.
'Bandit Drones.'
"A drone flight made over a garden was already illegal. Drones are regulated by CAA (UK) under ANO and unlicensed drones are prohibited from flying over property or people." Chris Attwell...Bristol.
I'm only the messenger. Hold your fire.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, DJI do dominate.
But the vast majority of drones today aren't being used for commercial purposes. And using dollar value doesn't correlate with the number of drones actually being sold (and flown) in the market.
For every DJI drone there are probably 20 more drones sold by companies like Syma, UDI, Hubsan, etc.
Originally Posted by Bull at a Gate
How about we all refrain from demonising drones and their controllers until ...
I calmly said it isn't his airspace, and the airlines do indeed pay for services associated with their use of airspace.
It's gone quiet, so maybe I won't get into an argument about abstruse concepts like controlled and prohibited airspace, or worse ...