http://m.scmp.com/news/china/society...d-after-drones

Central China over the weekend

50,000 dollar fine minimum for drone flying within certain areas or above certain altitudes. Assets seized to comply if cash is not available. Of course, I will be criticized but those criticizing will be silent and hidden the day a lot of people in an airliner die.

And it will happen. You heard it here first(or almost first).

EASA NPA 2017-05 "Introduction of a regulatory framework for the operation of drones — Unmanned aircraft system operations in the open and specific category" has been published -

https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-...nt/npa-2017-05

There are reasonable solutions, at least toward the legally inclined users. Take a listen between 22.30 and 30:00; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4kLHT02M1Y

You may also want to recognize the future utility of more modern air navigation systems when the line between drones and RPT becomes grey.

Home 'Drome Drone
 

LGA ATIS reporting a drone at 1000' 2 miles south the field last night. Landing the Expressway Visual 31. Lost in the sea of Manhattan lights last night, but they're out there...

Most of us who fly drones respect the 400 ft max altitude and proximity to airports rules which could only be violated in most drones by turning off the GPS mode not allowing the drone to fly in no fly zones. New rules will not affect the few who don't respect any rules anyway. We need penalties for those violating present rules that will help reduce violations. After a full career flying airliners I have never had an occasional, maybe four bird strikes, cause any damage. I don't think a recreational drone is any more a threat than a large bird. Sully probably wishes he had just sucked up one illegal drone that day he landed in the Hudson river.

C-GGOK, a de Havilland DHC-8-402 aircraft operated by Jazz Aviation Lp, was conducting flight JZA8975 from Montreal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau Intl, QC (CYUL) to Ottawa/MacDonald-Cartier Intl, ON (CYOW). During the final approach to Runway 07 at 1500 feet AGL, the flight crew briefly observed an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) at their 11 o’clock position, approximately 4.2 nautical miles from the threshold of the runway. The pilot flying made a small roll input as an evasive maneuver and the UAV passed just under the left wing of the aircraft. There was no damage to the aircraft, and no reported injuries to the occupants.

A British prison has become the world's first to use a new system designed to stop drones flying over perimeter walls to drop contraband into jails.

British prison is first to use 'disruptor' to create drone-proof 'shield' around jail

So just change the failsafe setting of the drone to keep going to a pre defined waypoint instead of Return to Home and this technology is defeated.

UAV activity at US Major airports.
 

Twice in one week I hear of unauthorised drone activity at major airports....firstly at JFK some clown operating a UAV close to CRI VOR with 31L departures and then last night a SAS nearly clobbered one on departure 28L ex SFO. They called it close to ATC operating at circa 500'. These people endangering aircraft I trust are subject to the full rigours of the law and deserve jail for such reckless activity.

Going to get harder. An appeals court just ruled the hobby drones don't have to be registered. See attached.

Just another craze, eventually they will go the way of hula hoops, CB radios, pogo sticks, etc etc.
It usually takes about a year, there are already far fewer on offer in shops.

Ancient Greek...
 

Totally disagree. Their growth is exponential and as capabilities and payloads increase, so does their desire, coupled with a lowering of price making them even more available.

They are a real problem, and are here to stay so the relevant authorities need to wake up and develop a strategy to mitigate them.

What keeps security people up at night
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/u...licy.html?_r=0

A link to the 10-page draft and summary of the legislation is included in the article. See the section on "Covered Events."

Drones have the potential to cause serious damage, up to how much for one engine rebuild?

Money talks, so why not 'dissuade' ILLEGAL drone operators by downing drones in no-fly areas? There are already several options and I'm certain the military have a few more that aren't in the public domain.

Another less dramatic method would be to assign an encrypted unique identifier to each drone/transmitter combo which has to be registered. (Like the MAC for IP devices). Admittedly, this could be circumvented or spoofed but it would reduce the problem.

DJI (one of the biggest 'drone' makers) will shortly be providing an update to the software only allowing users that have registered with them the ability to fly.

Some people are already moaning about big brother controlling things but I don't have an issue with it.

I brought a 'drone' last weekend and think it's brilliant but then I do observe the rules.
One interesting aspect is that all flight data is logged and sync'd to them.
I can view previous flights and it overlays on google earth where and when i have flown. this could be a great defence if someone claims I had been flying where I shouldn't.

Also DJI has a known list / map of no fly zones and apparently will not let the 'drone' take off if it's in one of these zones.

Of course this does not stop any idiot who is determined to fly one near planes but it does reduce the chances of these events happening.

Other 'drone' makers may follow suit.
anyone building there own 'drone' would fall outside of these restrictions though

Of course I have no desire to go and fly near an aircraft. it's taken me long enough to get my own drone so i have no desire to loose it

Hmmm. A drone flies illegally over an airport so you bring it hurtling to the ground.

Let's have a think about that ...

Drone problem at Gatwick?
 

Just noticed an EasyJet diverted into Southend - looking on their flight status it says "We're very sorry that your flight has diverted to Southend because of a drone flying around Gatwick. We plan to fly you to Gatwick soon. We're very sorry for this inconvenience."

BBC has an article coming together on it.

The EZY866 INV-LGW has diverted to STN as well

Assuming that it is a drone, and that it was flying where it should not be... a bloody stupid thing to be doing.

But there does some to be an element of 'blame the drone' going on at present. Some of the claims of Drones at 10,000 feet and above are stretching credibility..

I assume this will be far lower though.

Why don't they mobilise the Typhoons and shoot it down?

I'm guessing you haven't whizzed passed one on the approach then?

As for higher altitude:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNHThfQFi3g & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7_PN4gum1A and those are no special drones. I doubt they are up as high as they say they are but it is still higher than one might think!

Most (all) consumer drones would have been working hard at max power to get to that altitude (for those that can). And they will have no endurance left at all. Basically turning into an expensive falling stone.

The enterprise drones that have longer endurance cost into five figures. Lot of money to risk, not to mention CAA approvals.

That's why I'm sceptical.

I'm at the other end... PfCO holder. You might catch me flying near an airport - but I'll be within the regs and not putting aircraft at risk.

Interesting to have your perspective on it then!

I'm all for those who operate them sensibly and within the rules but, having had one encounter with a drone at about 1000ft, I can say that the issue is real and is a threat of sorts. Personally I think modern aircraft engines should be tested at full thrust and throwing a drone down it but I suppose a frozen chicken would still win.

I'm amazed that someone in telecomms at the airport hasn't thought of transmitting jamming signals on the drone frequencies within, say, 5nm of the airfield.

The problem with that particular strategy is that jamming the frequencies on which the drones operate (2.4GHz and 5.8Ghz) would be disruptive on many other systems within the airfield.

ATC Protocols
 

I trust Approach and Tower have a non knee-jerk response procedure following pilot reports of drones around Gatwick?

That would involve jamming all sorts of other devices in the area, because modern RC systems use spread spectrum (typically at 2.4 GHz, at lower frequencies for longer ranges up to 100 km). What is needed is an inexpensive transponder (e.g. uAvionix Ping200S ADS-B/Mode S Transponder) which all aircraft and secondary radars within some decent distance can pick up, just as AIS does for surface vessels. Of course, that doesn't in any way justify flying drones near airports, but this sort of technology should resolve the problems of flying remotely piloted aircraft in all appropriate airspace. The technology for UAVs is remarkably powerful and inexpensive, giving small electric craft an operational radius of about 100km, with full video ("first person view") and flight instrument data seen by the pilot.

Really, 100Km & inexpensive?

Well, no, not really.

Some of the higher end units offer range "up to 2 miles" between the controller and the aircraft, but, remember, that's a radius.

So you can't be 2 miles up and 2 miles away.

If it was, in fact, a drone, we're probably looking at something modified by a knowledgeable individual for greater range.

(As in optimize the antennae in both the controller and the craft, find all the wobbly grounds in the craft and correct them, and perhaps add a ground plane to the controller. The last part would be inconvenient to drag around.)

But why the f*ck someone that smart would fly into commercial airspace is beyond me.

Unless...

Here is a UAV (not a multicopter) developed and sold for both commercial users and amateur builders. Flown to 13,000 feet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpuhDhk8WrY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19RDaBTwC6I

Here is an off-the-shelf model capable of 100 km radius: details presented by a world expert (in China) on "drones" of all kinds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRAH-E0bczA

And two actual 100 km out and back flights of similar craft (lots of details):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqMm_gzuRYI&t=33s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfzBiZUPSo0

These are all examples of people who are essentially hobbyists integrating off-the-shelf equipment. The technology is well established and anybody can build and fly an FPV UAV with IFR gear. It can even be completely automated with on-board software:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RcwKYpTEWE

I think that detail is something a lot of people don't fully understand yet. The cheap technology has been around a while now for a fully preprogrammed autonomous drone flight with no inputs from a ground controller. From launch to recovery.

A scenario to relate it to the thread issue - Thanks to GPS a drone could be launched to fly a pre-programmed race track on the final approach or departure ends of a runway waiting for a pax jet to fly near or into it. If a small explosive device (something like a hand grenade) were added to the drone and some proximity alert devices installed (cheaply available from the automotive parts world) then what we got is a poor mans (terrorist) anti-aircraft missile.....






.

UAV's such as the Gemini are really only ever going to be in the hands of enthusiasts, whom one would hope will know better....

The more commonly attributable DJI drones, the Mavic, Phantom, and the more expensive Inspire are the one's which are more accessible to the newbie, but have impressive performance for their size.

DJI and the other manufacturers are becoming more switched on. They are using GPS to disable the UAV in certain areas. Unfortunately as with most software some backdoors exist, and I believe there is some firmware circulating that circumvents the protection. The protected areas are mostly a radius around the centre of runways, rather than following any Class of airspace.

DJI will switch off the protection for people with PfCO at specific time and locations, with prior notice and proof etc.

Whether Pilots like it or not UAV Drone's are out of the box and sharing your air.

The real issue is the lack of enforcement of the regs. Currently the CAA seem to have little interest, unless it's one of the 'big' events such as this. Other people flouting the rules will not be investigated or prosecuted. There was a video recently taken by a drone of an event in Kent. The event had well over 1,000 people and no-one with normal permissions would be able to fly over the crowd legally. The chap who filmed it had no PfCO and should not even have been in the air in that location, without the crowd. He has other video's which flouts the regs.

His video was reported to the police, who gave him a warning as he was not aware of the regs.

If he had driven a car without a license would a warning be appropriate?

The regulations are not being followed, simply because they are not being enforced.

Do I believe a Drone will bring down a plane? I'm not sure. I do believe that a collision in the present system is inevitable. Will it bring down a plane? That may be down to luck - which is not acceptable.

A/C diverting. Pax being hugely inconvenienced. Airline incurs a not inconsiderable cost. Surely this event highlights it was not an insignificant moment.

The radio reported that LGW closed the runway, (I assume airspace) for 9mins on 2 occasions. Would this really require diversions? Just how much fuel did those guys have? Surely enough to hold for a couple of circles?
I wonder what the real effort was in finding the laser culprits. Will the effort into finding these drone infringers be any greater? Where to start? Surely this will increase the call to have some registration & ID on the units. If you can 'find my phone' via GPS or whatever system it uses, then surely a drone can carry a phone sized battery/transmitter to enable it to be tracked and identified when necessary? I can not see a technological problem. It depends if there will be legislation to do so. It might even be the interest of the owner if they lose sight of it and it crashes or drifts off on the wind.

There was a consultation earlier this year, due for publication later this year. I would not be surprised to see that registration becomes obligatory. But it's not going to help find the drone unless it falls to the ground....

[QUOTE]drone unless it falls to the ground/QUOTE]

How about requiring the drone to transmit its registration at all times?

That would be the end of Wi-Fi for anyone living near the airport as well as anyone wanting t o use the Wi-Fi within the airport too.

[quote=Daysleeper;9819430]That's OK for expensive drones of the future that have that capability but no good for the cheap ones everyone has at the moment