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

Drone strike

Old 19th Apr 2016, 14:40
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,204
Originally Posted by wiggy View Post
You may be right, you may be wrong, but which will be the easiest and most popular to legislate against? The drone community may need all the friends it can get - name calling won't help.
Who's doing any name calling? I literally meant what I said. Pilot fatigue has a documented accident/incident history, and the threads on this place alone show that many professional pilots consider their own fatigue levels to be a significant threat to flight safety.

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 shit" 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
PDR1 is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2016, 15:09
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
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.
msjh is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2016, 16:44
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,429
It will calm down.
It will...and FWIW I think there's more common ground here than some might think - some of the more elderly here cut their teeth with single channel R/C (gliders in my case) and have no wish to see the modern equivalents overly restricted or banned...but they do need to be operated somewhere sensible by someone with common sense.
wiggy is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2016, 17:46
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 88
This may seem odd but I am reading forums claiming this to be a false alarm, stating there was no damage to the aircraft, not even a scrape on the paint.

Can anyone confirm.
DroneDog is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2016, 18:06
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by DroneDog View Post
This may seem odd but I am reading forums claiming this to be a false alarm, stating there was no damage to the aircraft, not even a scrape on the paint.

Can anyone confirm.
The Metropolitan Police's own statement (Appeal following incident with aircraft - Metropolitan Police) says:

"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.
TeeGeeZee is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2016, 18:18
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,023
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.
ZOOKER is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2016, 18:50
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by ZOOKER View Post
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.
A quick look on Youtube will reveal 100s of videos of various multirotors crashing back to earth intact due to a variety of malfunctions. It seems to me you're far more likely to become the victim of one of those than whatever's left after a >160kt impact with an airliner.

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.
TeeGeeZee is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2016, 19:04
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 63
Posts: 3
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.
G0ULI is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2016, 19:12
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,023
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.

Last edited by ZOOKER; 19th Apr 2016 at 19:22.
ZOOKER is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2016, 12:58
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 152
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 22:32.
Bull at a Gate is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2016, 14:58
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 488
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.
dirkdj is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 04:14
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,826
That definitely qualifies as one of the most unusual, perhaps bizarre 'accidents'
stilton is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 06:32
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,510
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.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 07:17
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Yes, DJI do dominate.
No they don't. That data is for US drones used for commercial purposes in 2014, based on dollar value.

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.
peekay4 is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 09:07
  #155 (permalink)  
aox
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by Bull at a Gate
How about we all refrain from demonising drones and their controllers until ...
On another forum, someone said he didn't want a drone with geo-fencing, but would agree to it if the airlines would pay him for use of his airspace.

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 ...
aox is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 09:12
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 88
I'm afraid controlled airspace is coming, well at least at the moment for drones anyhow one such company is called AIRMAP.
At the moment they are working with the major drone makers to provide Geo fencing data...for a fee.

How long before AIRMAP and its competitors want a slice of the leisure and commercial aircraft market?
DroneDog is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 09:22
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 88
If I may add, I was driving the outrage bus concerned that a drone had been is collision with an aircraft in the proximity of an airport . Such actions destroy the drone industry/hobby for all forcing draconian legalisation on all.

i have been flying RC models heli's etc since the late 90's and yes the old school approach really does factor is safety. I cringe watching some footage of drones flying over busy roads motorways etc with no regard to a failure.
I also charter full size heli's etc it just depends on the job. A particular requirement may be a mix of both.

The story on the collision seems to have gone quiet with some forums suggesting it was a work of fiction. If anyone on this forum knows what really happen please enlighten me.
Otherwise stories of commercial pilots 'crying wolf' does not help the issue.
DroneDog is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 17:11
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 643
Soooo... It might not have been a 'drone'...
It might have been a plastic bag...

Transport minister Robert Goodwill admitted authorities had not yet confirmed whether what struck the Airbus A320 was a remote-controlled device.
Nige321 is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 17:30
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Originally Posted by Nige321 View Post
Soooo... It might not have been a 'drone'...
It might have been a plastic bag...
I can tell you that's causing a sigh of relief from responsible drone pilots.
msjh is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.