Below 400'. Don't see a problem with that. It's within the range of a good catapult. ;)

Is the old Trappy case still going on?

That guy is a embarrassment to the rest of us. But the precedents that case creates will cause a draconian kneejerk reaction for the rest of us.... :sad:

I've been in the air transport industry since 1969, in a number of different sectors, eg airline management, airport management and engineering, in a number of different countries, eg UK, UAE, Oman, Jordan, USA, Israel (Gaza), Tunisia, Greece and the Philippines. Before that I was in the military for 10 years, including the final 3 years working as an Intelligence officer in the Gulf region. At various times, and in various ways, I have been closely involved in anti-terrorist and aviation security.

In my view, the free availability of the sophisticated drones that are around now, as well as of the more and more sophisticated ones that are coming fast down the line, represents the biggest threat to air transport (to say nothing of humanity as a whole) that has been seen so far, not excluding hijacking by suicidal maniacs, SAM firings by rogue military forces, or Muslim and other religious extremists.

The threat comes from unintentional collisions, or from terrorist attacks for which drones can be used in several ways.

The threat cannot be diminished by laws governing their operation, for the obvious reason that laws are obeyed only by the good.

The ONLY way that the threat can be reduced to as low as reasonably practical is to impose the same controls on their manufacture and distribution that apply to dangerous, ie nuclear, weapons, with very long prison sentences for breaking the law.

And this needs to be done sooner rather than later. Any drone is a threat to safety, or a dangerous weapon if the user wants it to be, and they are out there, now, in the hands of idiots and terrorists.

Absolutely.

Microburst2002 (Post #32) and Capot (Post #44) --
Thank you very much for your words of wisdom.

Stone-age beliefs and psychology and 21st century technology is a lethal combination. :eek:

Well they can try but the regulations down to that level will be unenforceable. Will police be stopping 10 year olds with $19 electric helicopters? Once regulations are unenforceable they lapse into disrepute.

Like most other flotsam and jetsam regulations in aviation

It will require a statistical balance between avoidance of a hazardous encounter in balance with the damage tolerance of the aircraft and its systems.

We're going to need data in encounters and hopefully none are actually fatal. Perhaps there are some similar experiences already in the data base

I don't know enough about the subject to comment with authority but intuitively it seems that they constitute a danger, as others here have said. This report seems to support that.

One near the approach to DXB recently, seen by aircraft at around 5500 feet. All movements suspended until the police chopper had a look but seen nothing. No idea who owned it, where it came from or went to.

Christmas gift: attack of the drones | Technology | The Guardian

:uhoh:

On Approach to LCY yesterday morning, just past the QE2 Bridge / Dartford crossing I was idly taking in the views of London when some type of blended-wing aircraft flew right past us in the other direction (west to east), passing under the wing, I almost cacked myself. It had a wingspan of 40-50cm I guess. I thought my eyes were deceiving me until I heard a guy a few rows back saying "Did you see that". I pointed it out to the cabin crew when de-boarding to which the reply was “oh thanks for letting me know”.

That one wasn't; 8 lives remaining...........Maybe it wasn't as close as it seemed, it often isn't, but if it was close enough to see it was too close.

When will the denizens in the Belgrano find time, between tea-breaks, meetings, team-building etc to start to worry that it might be a good idea to do something immediate, positive and effective to prevent the accident before it happens rather than waiting, in the traditional way, until after there is a hole in the ground with bodies in it, and then blaming everyone else for their failure to ensure aviation safety?

And you propose that they do what exactly?

Flag up the issue at Minister level in the UK, as well as in the top levels of EASA, that unless these toys/weapons are banned from sale now, with criminal penalties for infringement, it's simply a matter of time until a serious crash/terrorist crime will take place, and that the danger exists now, not next year. It should also be a crime to own and/or operate one in the UK at least, preferably the civilised world..

The measured bureaucratic processes of procrastination, consultation, drafting etc etc have to be short-circuited, no matter how many people's noses are put out of joint.

It is not impossible to do this; imagine how quickly it will happen if there is an accident caused by an idiot with one of these "toys", especially one over a large city like London.

And I'll bet £1,000 on the existence of a group of extremists, probably in the UK, with at least one of these things and engaged now in working out the best way to use it against a high-profile target such as a commercial airliner on the approach to LCY or LHR 28L/R.

I'm well aware of the complacent view that they are only another kind of model aircraft, which have been flying for years with no problem. But they are not, there is a world of difference.

And all the parts are freely available to build your own. No amount of legislation will stop the reckless or those with criminal intent.

A bit like banning hand guns after Dunblane more draconian legislation only penalises the legitimate.

Quite true. But the parts have been freely available for a long time. But it takes some knowledge to put them together and make the result work well.

Now there are complete, working models on sale, available to all and sundry with no expertise or knowledge whatsoever, and that's why the danger exists.

I detect in some posts the world-weary "'twas ever thus, what can we do, can't stop progress" approach.

That will last until there is a major accident in the USA caused by an unregulated drone, exactly as TWA 800 finally woke the industry into action to remove a danger everyone knew about, which had caused many fuel tank explosions before the one in TWA 800.

Even a drone-related accident in Europe might wake up the industry. Who knows.

When it happens, prevention will suddenly become do-able. What a pity we can never learn the lessons of the past and act to prevent the tragedy before it happens.

Capot

You are talking as if a couple of crashes is the worst thing that can happen in the world.
Sometimes trying to make everything safe sucks the fun out of life..
Life is not a competition to find who can live the longest you know.
If you have concerns about public safety, why not start with the actually dangerous parts of human existence rather than the single safest mode of transport ever invented.
Over one million people die ever year on the road but where is the uproar? We accept it because we deem it acceptable.
Just like drones

Tourist - Whoa... “a couple of crashes”... ouch. Not acceptable. And I dont think anyone deems road accidents acceptable either. Road safety continues to improve, people are actively working on it. “making everything safer sucks the fun out of life”... you cant be serious. Not improving safety sucks the life out of life, how are you going to have fun then. Airline safety cant be compared to road safety for a number of reasons, transport aircraft are operated by large organisations, made up of skipled professionals, with vast resources devoted to safety,and rigorous standards. To participate in road traffic all you need is a bicycle, there's essentially no requirements, no training, no team, no professionals, few standards. 10 low income countries stand for about half the world's road fatalities, and a slightly bigger group of countries with 50% of the worlds vehicles, create 90% of fatalities. Safety improvements are also a resource issue, for some, its almost a “luxury, and not all countries can afford the same level of safety. Airline and road safety is like comparing apples to oranges. Yet both are continuously improving, within their particular constraints. Thats the most important after all, that we keep improving safety. Your post is misleading, Road accident rates are no excuse not to keep improving airline safety.

More in today's NY Times:

Now, Anyone Can Afford a Drone. Heaven Help Us.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/te...erns.html?_r=0

Capot, I'm afraid this may be kind of like trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

The Answer is to legislate in the same way as Aircraft that require Pilots.

1. The Drone/UAV must hold a certificate of Airworthiness.

2. The operator/Pilot must complete a recognised course and hold the appropriate licence.

3. And if the Drone/UAV is being used in a commercial sense - an Air Operators Certificate must be obtained. And the Pilots must obtain a commercial licence.

4. Lastly it should be enforced that the companies or manufacturers of these products are not permitted to sell these Airborne devices - unless the purchaser can prove that he/she complies with the above.

The commercial use of RPAS/UAV is already quite well regulated here in the UK along similar lines to that suggested above. The problem with bringing in draconian laws is that the bone-fide operators (who aren't a threat to safety) will be prevented from operating so the only ones who will continue to operate will be those dangerous ones who are a threat to safety.

Holer Moler

Let's go to the other extreme.

Just like radio frequency spectrums that must be shared (after all the air is free isn't it)

Drone operations need be regulated to operate only in certain airspaces. Even those without training or credentials (the guy next door) can operate in some spaces without having to show a paper trail. And the big guys can operate in the same space as well but at their risk.

So that leads us back to the fundamental question of what risks are quantifiable (not this what-if stuff, that fills the evening news and discussion boards).

Somewhere along the line we are going to have to assign responsibilty between both conflicting users of the airspace to avoid collisons and for that we need reasonable wordings not just "keep off the grass" signs.

12,000 gun related deaths per year in the US and you're going to pass legislation to effectively control drones???

Paraglider Winching to 2500' on the downwind leg
 

Les Ailes Québécoises ? Forum de discussions

It's the same as all the hysteria about l@sers and terrorists and every other doom laden news report.

"We are all going to die!!!"

Over a million people die every year in road accidents, and yet we all get in cars without undue stress.

Life in London continued through the blitz with 100 tons of high explosives raining down every night.

Watch the footage of Tarir Square where an Apache has about a thousand green lasers on the cockpit yet he continued to fly quite happily.

The modern world worries too much about the statistically insignificant.

I have no doubt that eventually an aircraft will be brought down by a drone either deliberately or by accident, no different from birds really. Should we kill all the birds?

Everybody has to die.
If there are 7 billion people on the planet, and people live let's say 75 years, then to hold steady, 265,000 have to die every day.
265,000 every day!

What's the big deal if 300 die in a plane crash once in a blue moon?

Don't get me wrong, I like being alive, but life is not about surviving the longest, it's about having the best life.
Banning everything that increases the risk of death(Sailing/skiing/motor racing/etc etc etc) would leave a very dull world.

For me, just the amazing footage already seen from baby UAVs is more than worth the infinitesimally small addition to my risk of death from a UAV.

Particularly when you consider that a large airliner should not be in any way vulnerable to a single strike from even a large quad copter. Might lose a single engine yes, same as a large bird really.

Quite frankly, anybody who believes that baby UAVs are as big a risk as nuclear weapons has a credibility(sanity?) issue.

Part of being a decent pilot is the ability to measure risk and adjust accordingly. Anybody who thinks that baby UAVs appear anywhere near the top of the risk register has no place in the cockpit.

The invention of the affordable automobile by Henry Ford made possible the car bomb. Should we ban the car?!

Most people would agree that the many positives of the car offset the occasional tragedy, awful though they are.

Going commercial now
 

GoPro is about to start making consumer drones fitted with their cameras.

GoPro Developing Line of Consumer Drones - WSJ

And with that flash of clarity and insight, he dismantled the whole boring, tedious apparatus erected by bureaucrats and idiots in a doomed, expensive, unnecessary but generally quite successful effort to make aviation just a little bit safer.

I so hope that you are one of the 300. But I weep for the other 299, which might include me if it happens fairly soon.

And this from yesterday's Washington Post:

Near-collisions between drones, airliners surge, new FAA reports show - The Washington Post

As many/most of these drones contain GPS capabilities, couldn't manufacturers limit altitude automatically? Some of these incidents occurred at several thousand feet.

Capot

A common sign of the rather over excitable types that tend to congregate around little crusades like this -ie ones that have little or no basis in statistical analysis is that you see nothing wrong with wishing my death for having a different opinion.

You say one thing.
I say the opposite.
Because of this, despite the fact that I have no ability to alter reality and no responsibility for the situation either way, you wish me dead.

Do you not question whether your thought processes are perhaps a little skewed?

I have nothing against the generaly spectacularly effective efforts to make aviation safer. That is not the same as supporting tabloid crusades.

I wasn't really wishing you dead; I just pictured you saying to yourself "What's the big deal if 300 die in a plane crash once in a blue moon?" as you plunge to your doom with the other 299.

Apart from that, I have seen no signs of a tabloid crusade; pity, really.

Mark's last post supports my case, although you may not see it that way. I hope this discussion doesn't become a candidate for JetBlast.

I don't see legislation working. Unlike aircraft, where you at least have a pilot to locate/prosecute, these things can be controlled from anywhere. Trying to find the controller would be needle-in-haystack stuff.

True.

But from the investigation side we're going to need something akin to traceable MAC addresses in the computer thinggie that's controlling it.

If I ever saw a troll, “tourist” gets pretty close

I agree that the use of quad copters is becoming a threat - when used without common sense...

I do fly for a living and I'm also a keen RC plane geek...

Recently, whilst flying my rc plane, a guy came over with a quadcopter. I got talking to him whilst he was using his quadcopter and he told me that he held an "online record" for having reached certain speeds and altitudes with his equipment - which he can prove with onboard GPS... His "record" was 2800ft...

I was alarmed as where he was flying was in the Northwest of the UK with very busy airspace overhead... Liverpool arrivals at 2000ft, the Low level corridor overhead with light aircraft at max alt of 1200ft or so and Manchester departures also overhead... He was unaware of all of this as he was just "a guy of the street that went and bought a quad copter"

I'm all for the hobby of rc flying but the invention of being able to fly out of sight of the operator has its implications...

It's not a completely new problem
 

Have none of you flown between the kites at CGK / SUB / DPS during the windy season.


I have seen 10 metre long (including streamer tail) kites in Bali at 2,000 ft and a gang of 20 men holding onto the string.

Nope, not a troll.

I just happen to believe that aviation has long ago met, or should I say impacted the law of diminishing returns.
The stuff we now spend huge amounts of effort on has negligible/zero effect and costs a fortune.

For some reason it is only aviation.
All other areas of life seem to be exempt.

Flying is safe enough.

Precisely. Now why do you think that is?

I also think you are trolling; no serious poster could be that dim.

I guess that calling someone stupid is a step back from wishing them dead. Either way, ad homs are a sure sign of a lack of rational argument.

There is a legitimate discussion to be had regarding the risks vs benefits of UAVs/drones etc, but calling for a blanket ban because of a tiny perceived risk is absurd and will never happen.

from that Washington Post article that Mark in CA quoted;

I should clarify that a lot of work is going on in ICAO and a number of States, to develop UAS DAA (Detect and Avoid) requirements, regulations and potential solutions, for RPAS (Remotely Piloted Air Systems) operating BLOS (Beyond Line of Sight). I thought you would like those shiny new acronyms. (RAeS Members may recognise that sentence.) This is late in the day, but will probably achieve its objectives in time. But it is about large commercial and military RPAS who expect to operate responsibly in a controlled environment (not necessarily controlled airspace) and do not represent a threat to safety or security (at least not until they are used against a State or organisation such as IS.)

The danger I'm on about is the idiot or rogue with something bought in a model shop that has the capability, intentional or otherwise to bring down an airliner, to whose operator/owner regulations will be a closed book, or a joke. And I do not think the perceived risk is tiny. I think we are sleep-walking to a major disaster, or terrorist attack, using these things within 1 - 2 years at the most.

Terrorists have had little UAVs for a long time.
Very specialised ones that go really fast and are in fact specifically designed to shoot down aircraft. They are called SAMs.
Yet a remarkably small number of civilian aircraft have been shot down despite many attempts.
My point is that even with the right tools, it is surprisingly tricky to do.

I'm really not that worried about chimps with quad copters, at least not compared to how worried I am about the vast number of SAMs that have disappeared from Libya/Syria etc in the last few years.

Tell me. Do you worry about meteor strikes too?