There have been a few, most recently a couple of impacts with model gliders. See the table on page 7 of the final report of EASA's Drone Collision Task Force

That's NOT as I read it. The EASA report you quote on pages 6 and 7 of your link gives details of 5 drone collisions with light aircraft, not model gliders. One was FATAL.

The circumstances of the FATAL COLLISION with a drone are on page 6 of your link. Here for ease of reference ...
https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fi...on%20(005).pdf

This paper from EASA lists 5 drone collisions with aircraft. One was a double fatality. See pages 6 and 7.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fi...on%20(005).pdf

Though hardly the archetypal "drone collision".

A motorglider strayed into a R/C model aircraft flying area and encountered a model glider towing combo. In the resulting collision the wing of the Grob was severed leading to a loss of control.

https://www.bfu-web.de/DE/Publikatio...ublicationFile

Dave, you are quite right I have re-read the EASA report on page 6 of the link (I can't read the German report) and is does indeed say the Grob hit a model.
Quite why they say on the table on page 7 it collided with a dingo drone, I have no idea. I now also have no idea why they mentioned it at all.
Sorry for the misleading post...

Another incident to blame on drones
 

From another thread....

Found one already.

"Occurrence No.: A17F0018 Occurrence Type: INCIDENT REPORTABLE
Class: CLASS 5 Reportable Type: COLLISION (x)
Date: 2017-01-20 Time: 23:00:00 UTC
Region of
Responsibility:
HEAD OFFICE
Location: 22.00 Nautical miles SE From SCEL - Arturo Merino Benítez
International Airport - Santiago de Chile
Country: CHILE Province:
Ground Injuries: Fatal: 0 Minor: 0
Serious: 0 Unknown: 0
---------- Aircraft 1 ----------
Registration: C-FIGR Operator: VIH HELICOPTERS LTD
Manufacturer: KAMOV Operator Type: COMMERCIAL
Model: KA-32A11BC CARS Sub Part: 702 - AERIAL WORK
Injuries: Fatal: 0 Minor: 0
Serious: 0 None: 2
Unknown: 0
Occurrence Summary:
C-FIGR, a Kamov KA-32A11BC aircraft operated by VIH Helicopters, was conducting forest fire suppression operations in Chile with 2 pilots on board.

As the aircraft was returning after a water drop, the crew heard a loud bang. There were no warning lights and no mechanical abnormalities were noted. The flight crew initially determined that they experienced a bird strike and returned to base where the helicopter landed with no further events.

Maintenance personnel performed an inspection and found minor damage to the front avionics door. No evidence of a bird strike could be found, however a tear in the skin of the helicopter, as opposed to a dent, was identified. Additionally, evidence consistent with a plastic smear on the paint as well as damage to the door’s lower hinge was found. The operator suspects a collision with a hard object similar to a drone."

Seen the damage, if indeed it was one , must have been a small drone or even a model, the question is what altitude was he helicopter ?

Well, indeed.

I used to fly a small drone. I was never closer than several miles from the nearest airport and I kept well within CAA rules (below 400', never more than 400 yards away).

Yet on a couple of occasions a helicopter came by at about 200'. In each case I descended rapidly but I can't be sure that if the helicopter had been going straight at my drone I would have been out of the way in time.

Eventually I sold the drone. I got some great aerial footage but it wasn't worth the risk of a collision.

What altitude was the helicopter my ****! It was fire-fighting!

This is precisely the reason that those who operate legally at low level are so worried about the damn things. They can pop up anywhere and as msjh said when a bona-fide low level aircraft appears there is little time to react. Helicopters and light aircraft operate into and out of remote sites, fly legally below 200ft on some exemptions (power lines for instance, the regular 200ft (!!??? Hmm...) Chinook low-level route by my house) and way below 500 on many others - and don't need an exemption to ground level on open countryside anyway - so drones are a potential threat.
Drone operators and legislators blindly imagining that a height separation solves the problem are severely deluding themselves, as shown by the extraordinarily smug question asked by ATC watcher. Helicopters and light aircraft operate perfectly legally in the airspace below 500ft and it is neither their responsibility nor within their capability to avoid drones. The only one who can do that is the drone operator - and there seems precious little evidence that even the drone guidelines, lax as they are, are even known by many operators (many/most of whom are amateurs of course) let alone adhered to. Go look on youtube to see some of the idiotic things people are proudly boasting of doing with them!
If drones were hard-wired to no more than 100 or 150 ft I'd have thought they'd achieve most of what they need to do and remain pretty safe. 400ft seems vastly excessive to me in view of legitimate pre-existig aviation requirements.

I fear it is only a matter of time before this is backed up by a body count.

noflynomore : reading the small report helps, they were not fire fighting but returning to the airport : I do not know the rules in Chile , but in Europe , it would 500 ft minimum. hence the Drone regulation. We have had recently in the UK an airprox filed by a drone owner , when an helicopter came at 100-200ft right above where he was working ( legally) .
Remember a drone owner do not want his expensive toy to be destroyed either...

The regs might say 500 ft but who in the military in france obeys that!
Many moons ago I did a microlight license at an airfield notified to the dgac...had an airmiss with a pair of mirages ...one of which we heard...the other who knows.
My brother was instructing a customer with a small basic model aircraft trainer...two pairs of super etandards flew over the field ..one pair below the model. Again the airfield registered with the dgac.
They have taken out a few microlights over the years.
I should add that they use the area for basic cross country training...rather foolish to plan over airfields imho.
On a similar subject of low flying military watched a Tornado cross the Thames from the london eye south to north ...way below the 500ft rule.

Well in France ( and some other EU countries) it is quite well regulated. The low level corridors are on the maps with numbers and the respective activation times are on the military Notams that anyone wanted to fly in them should consult before ( or ask the FIS) .
. ULM ( ultra lights) "airfields" are just like private landing strips. They are registered but are not protected against low levels military in the corridors. Golden rule we all do : Check the Notams before using the airspace.

Well if that's how you feel then perhaps we should observe that there is a clear conflict of requirements, and the drone operators are probably more numerous that the helicopters and light aircraft. As we live in a democracy the majority's interests should come first, so obviously the time has come to prohibit aircraft from flying below (say) 1500 feet AGL everywhere outside the airfields controlled airspaces.

If that's the way you want it I'm sure it could be arranged...

ATC watcher...the regulation in height here is 500ft...and certainly five years ago there were none in our region marked on charts as I used to fly transponder equipped gliders and work military ATC.
By the way I got the military limit from a mate who was ex naval fighter pilot whilst we were sipping golden nectar on my terrace watching a couple of guys fly past around 300ft at 300 knots...

Drones/Kites/RC/Birds of Prey...
 

Doesn't matter what the device/species involved in the impact - it can be deadly serious.

If "operated" by a person on the ground it must be line of sight well away from aerodromes & known low level corridors. A white drone against a light grey/white sky makes conspicuity difficult for the operator let alone a pilot travellling over 100kts.

All single engine flying requires engine-out training towards a successful forced landing (PFL). Whilst pilots must obey the 500' rule for civilian flying that can be 500' horizontally to ensure the pilot can demonstrate correct PFL technique.

As for demanding the defenders of democracy not to fly below 1500'.................. WTF!

It is the personal level of risk that matters. A drone operator is very unlikely to die in a drone collision (unless it falls on his head from 500'), a pilot and passengers hit by a drone risk death.

Model gliders are drones. The authorities use the term drone as a synonym for unmanned aircraft.

The things in the table in the EASA report that stand out for me are the absence of multirotors and the fact that all the manned aircraft are small private planes.

ATC Watcher, do you have more details of the airprox you referred to?

Perhaps this one (March 2016):
www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/Airprox Report 2016038.pdf
or maybe another ...
Interesting that in the March incident, the helicopter involved couldn't be traced or identified despite being on radar for at least part of its flight.

I'm confused - wasn't it a reference to an airprox in Chile ?

@DaveReidUK:
I, and I think electrotor, meant to refer to ATC Watcher's post #687, above:

Ah, I'm with you now. :\

I agree, that one appears to be the only UKAB airprox report originated by a civilian drone operator in recent years.

Yes that is the one I was referring to.
The (recent) conclusions of the UK airprox board on that one were :

C-FFJM, a Perimeter Aviation LP Fairchild SA-227-AC aircraft was conducting flight PAG204 from Gods Narrows, MB (CYGO) to Winnipeg/James Armstrong Richardson Intl, (CYWG). While at approximately 2000 ft. asl, on a 4 nm final approach to Runway 31 at CTWG, the aircraft passed approximately 100 feet below an unknown airborne object. The object was octagonal in shape and bright red in colour. The flight crew did not make an evasive manoeuvre but reported the event to ATC. The aircraft landed without further incident.

C-GGOF, a de Havilland DHC-8-402 aircraft operated by Jazz Aviation LP, was conducting flight
JZA584 from Calgary Intl, AB (CYYC) to Saskatoon/John G. Diefenbaker Intl, SK (CYXE). The
aircraft was just below 1000 ft agl, on a 3 nm final approach to Runway 27 with clearance to land.
The flight crew observed a red and white drone travelling eastward. The drone passed directly
overhead within 50 feet of their altitude. The flight crew reported the incident to ATC. ATC advised
that there was known UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) activity within the area, but conflicts were not
expected. The NOTAM references an unrelated UAV operation south of the airport.

Small drone 'shot with Patriot missile'
 

"That quadcopter that cost 200 bucks from Amazon.com did not stand a chance against a Patriot," he said.

Ya think?

Small drone 'shot with Patriot missile' - BBC News

Drones could be carrying shuttlecock bombs:-

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/...9668711785.jpg

Time to ban as many as possible,

"One of the primary issues surrounding the proliferation of drones is their interference with other aircraft.
A new report from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) confirms that while more drones are being spotted by pilots of other aircraft, there have not yet been any collisions with planes or helicopters.
If this trend continues, it could present issues down the road as enterprise drone usage grows, especially once logistics providers try to launch drone delivery services.
To a degree, this is a natural phenomenon that’s the result of heightened enterprise drone usage. In a report last year, BI Intelligence analyzed the emerging enterprise drone space and identified several prominent use cases driving this adoption. The fact that more pilots are spotting drones in the skies is likely a result of this phenomenon, though it could also point to negligence on the part of enterprises and consumers who use the drones.
But while not currently an issue, a high-profile collision could cause the FAA to rethink its drone delivery policies. The agency is mandated by Congress to release regulations on commercial drone delivery services sometime next year. However, if the number of drones continues to grow and a significant crash were to occur, this could prompt the FAA to move to restrict drone usage ahead of the much-anticipated legalization of a commercial drone delivery service.
Drones turned the corner in 2015 to become a popular consumer device, while a framework for regulation that legitimizes drones in the US began to take shape. Technological and regulatory barriers still exist to further drone adoption.
Drone manufacturers and software providers are quickly developing technologies like geo-fencing and collision avoidance that will make flying drones safer. The accelerating pace of drone adoption is also pushing governments to create new regulations that balance safety and innovation.
Safer technology and better regulation will open up new applications for drones in the commercial sector, including drone delivery programs like Amazon’s Prime Air and Google’s Project Wing initiatives.
BI Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service, has compiled a detailed drones report that forecasts sales revenues for consumer, enterprise, and military drones. It also projects the growth of drone shipments for consumers and enterprises.
The report details several of world’s major drone suppliers and examines trends in drone adoption among several leading industries. Finally, it examines the regulatory landscape in several markets and explains how technologies like obstacle avoidance and drone-to-drone communications will impact drone adoption.
Here are some of the key takeaways from the report:
We project revenues from drones sales to top $12 billion in 2021, up from just over $8 billion last year.
Shipments of consumer drones will more than quadruple over the next five years, fueled by increasing price competition and new technologies that make flying drones easier for beginners.
Growth in the enterprise sector will outpace the consumer sector in both shipments and revenues as regulations open up new use cases in the US and EU, the two biggest potential markets for enterprise drones.
Technologies like geo-fencing and collision avoidance will make flying drones safer and make regulators feel more comfortable with larger numbers of drones taking to the skies.
Right now FAA regulations have limited commercial drones to a select few industries and applications like aerial surveying in the agriculture, mining, and oil and gas sectors.
The military sector will continue to lead all other sectors in drone spending during our forecast period thanks to the high cost of military drones and the growing number of countries seeking to acquire them.
In full, the report:
Compares drone adoption across the consumer, enterprise, and government sectors.
Breaks down drone regulations across several key markets and explains how they’ve impacted adoption.
Discusses popular use cases for drones in the enterprise sector, as well as nascent use case that are on the rise.
Analyzes how different drone manufacturers are trying to differentiate their offerings with better hardware and software components.
Explains how drone manufacturers are quickly enabling autonomous flight in their products that will be a major boon for drone adoption."

FAA report shows pilots are seeing more drones - Business Insider

Passenger jet approaching Heathrow in drone 'near-miss' - BBC News

.....It happened on 11 November 2016, ....a near-miss with a drone at 10,000ft as it approached Heathrow Airport.

It was one of four near misses between aircraft and drones in the latest UKAB monthly report, and brings the total in the past 12 months to 59.

April 1st Telegraph reports a 10,000ft near miss near Heathrow. It aint no fool.

How High Can A Drone Fly? Enthusiast Flies Drone To 11,000 Feet

Reportedly an off-the-shelf DJI Phantom with the firmware modified in this instance, so it's not out of the question.

Quoting 'JammedStab' - " Time to ban as many as possible"

The snag with that approach is that, unless the authorities act sensibly, perfectly law abiding radio control model fliers will be penalised and may have a quite harmless hobby destroyed.

EASA is already struggling to come up with rules that allow reasonable differentiation between R/C models and drones. The legal types seem to be having difficulty, as so often. Common sense isn't allowed I suppose.

For me the really annoying thing about this is that it looks like being a, possibly terminal, repeat of the last nonsense in UK. Way back in the Eighties, people started illegally importing and using CB radios. Those worked in the same frequency band as radio control models, so caused interference & crashes. The response of authority was to tell R/C modellers to buy new radios, changing frequency band, at considerable cost. They did nothing about the illegal CBs.
The modellers mostly had had paid up radio licences. Funnily enough, few continued to pay for those !

I'm not sure what to suggest. Maybe insist that a licence is shown before purchase of any model with GPS and/or artificial stability or 'autopilot' functions?

The description matches a delta wing drone that I think costs about £350 pounds. was looking at one in a shop in Devizes a couple of days ago.

On a TV programme the other night, about a journalist returning to he's home city in Iraq with parts still held by IS, one big concern was IS drones dropping grenades on civilians. The children stayed inside to play and everyone watched the sky when outside. Shows what can be done with a drone.

Flight crew spots drone flying near Ottawa airport
Air Canada Express airliner landed safely Tuesday without incident, Transport Canada investigates

CBC News

Flight crew spots drone flying near Ottawa airport - Ottawa - CBC News

C-GWSV, a Boeing 737-800 aircraft operated by WestJet, was conducting flight WJA1233 from Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, FL (KFLL) to Toronto/Lester B. Pearson Intl, ON (CYYZ). During the climb through 10 800 feet after departure from KFLL, a rotary UAV passed to the right of the aircraft at approximately 100 feet above. The UAV appeared to have something hanging off of it. The flight crew notified ATC.

Disaster is inevitable. Ban drones...

"C-FMLV, a Boeing 767-300 aircraft operated by Air Canada rouge, was conducting a flight from Montreal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau Intl, QC (CYUL) to Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, FL (KFLL). While on the left downwind leg for Runway 10L at KFLL, the flight crew observed and reported a grey UAV that passed over the left wing by approximately 10 feet. The flight crew did not visually acquire the UAV until effective avoidance maneuver was no longer possible. There was a second encounter with a silver UAV when the aircraft was established on the LOC RWY 10L at about 2200 feet between PIONN (IF) and NOVAE (FAF)."

A complete ban on flight within X radius of an airport,
and above a certain height should stop all but criminals from being a nuisance?

A blanket ban will not deter the mentally unbalanced
anyway and penalize a very worthy hobby into the bargain.

I don't believe that delivery drones are more than an extremely limited publicity device, so any legit users like farmers or power companies could get a permit, but a straightforward proximity based rule should at least be tried,
all these little denied options begin to accrue.

IMO:8

One was spotted in the Gatwick zone recently at 3000ft.

Most, if not all, consumer drones already come with geo-fencing.

New mini attack bomb drone from Turkey: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5c9_1494271715




.

Blanket bans are a complete illusion of security, after all they legally exist at the moment but it's clear they don't work. The real culprits will take no notice of any pathetic laws like this, only draconian, totally over the top retribution will have any effect. The most effective measure might be to educate the general public that people who fly drones close to airports are the same people who will kill your mother, brother, father etc. when they get it wrong. Let peer pressure do its job, like with drink driving. It is now acceptable to call Plod to have a look at someone who appears under the influence. Education, carrot and stick in the correct proportions.