US military can now shoot down drones:

US military to shoot down consumer drones - BBC News

A UK NATS video of the impact a drone had on Gatwick traffic in July;

https://vimeo.com/228662010

Just work out the cost of this one incident

I'd question that NATS video and the aircraft tracks depicted. They look generic, to be honest.

Also, a timely incident for the CAA on home turf around the same time as they release their report on drone collisions. Are they going to do this (stop all movements) every time there's a sighting in future? I doubt it.

Yes, shame on the fool for flying their drone so close to Gatwick. They should be punished accordingly. But making such a hoohah about it to reinforce your argument that you want more restrictions on Phantoms and Mavics, I would argue, actually weakens your case.

I doubt it.

Using actual recorded tracks from the day in question is probably a whole lot easier than fabricating lots of fictitious ones.

It is simple to create the video when you have already built visualization software to create videos from routinely captured recorded data.

About 20 years ago a "responsively flown" small model aircraft flew into a hanglider at
Devils Dyke Brighton uk
Th Hanglider pilot was killed.
The Police and CAA decided to take no action against the model flier.

I dont fly hangliders now, but I do fly Microlights.
I dont suppose Military "drones" will be stopped, but I would sure as hell like all other such devices to be shut down

Come on Wilyflier, more details would be appreciated if you're going to use that one incident from 20 years ago. What height? Designated and well known hang gliding area? Perhaps the hang glider flew over a known model aircraft strip and clubhouse that he should've read up on before taking flight?

If this all happened 20yrs ago with a responsible model aircraft flyer, I'd say short of just not flying his model that day, there was nothing else he could have done to prevent a collision with a hang glider.

Life is full of risks. A woman was killed in London by being knocked down by a cyclist with no front brakes. He was cleared recently. There's no talk of banning bikes nor banning bikes cycled by irresponsible cyclists etc and yet cyclists and pedestrians mingle many more times per day than a drone is flown up into the air.

Have you read the CAA commissioned report into Drone collisions? It's linked above. Talk about starting with your answer and working out how to get there. Vested interests are trying to shut this hobby down for, well, their own vested interests.

It's no coincidence that the US military have stated they've ordered their members to not use DJI products. Also, they will shoot down any drones they see flying close to their installations (apparently, from cyber fears that the Chinese could then hack what the pilot recorded)

This clampdown is not about safety and a Phantom hitting a 320 at 140kts.

Sounds like it.

THRILL SEEKERS DICING WITH DEATH AT THE DYKE (From The Argus)

Less than a year after June 1986 ;

"...fatal accident less than a year later, when he collided with a radio-controlled model aeroplane. Within weeks, the Southern Hang-gliding Club voted to create a special "exclusion zone" to keep hang-gliders away from model plane fliers. Members agreed not to fly below 250ft in the North Bowl area of the Dyke - a rule which has been adhered to ever since."

Wow, interesting.

There you go.

I'm not having a go at anyone. It just annoys me when 'regulatory bodies' come out with their catch-all 'it's for safety' :mad: and people just accept it.

I'll say this again. It is not to protect John and Patricia Smith coming back from their holidays. That's simply a by-product of the legislation they're trying to bring in.

On a point of accuracy, shortly after the Devil's Dyke accident, the British Model Flying Association, in conjunction with the BHPA, issued a Code of Practice for the shared use of sites by model aircraft and hang gliders/paragliders, which has enabled safe use of sites by both sports since then.

Why would NATS release a "generic" video to make a point when they have the real life disruption on tap? That is almost like blaming a cancellation on a fictitious ATC strike.....

There have been collisions between paragliders and model gliders, since Ron Steadman's fatal accident, but no more fatalities, AFAIK. The white demarcation posts between the modellers' bowl and the hangliding area, at Devil's Dyke, have long since rotted away and have not been replaced.

The collision occurred at 80' above the hill (too low for a reserve deployment). The models and the hangliders used the same soarable ridge. Generally the hangliders were at the west side and the models at the east side. The model flyers would keep line-of-sight separation with the hangliders to make sure of no conflict but the model flyer failed to do so, in this instance, and mis-judged the range separation of the two. The model was fairly heavy, fast and had the wings mounted on steel pins, projecting from the fuselage. The hanglider side-wire slid between the model wing and fuselage, and was cut by the steel mounting pin of the model.

Clearly the issue of drones is complicated, and no single "solution" is going to solve potential conflicts. If I don't miss my guess, the solutions to the great majority of these issues will come about through pressure on manufacturers to install technical limits, be it "geo-fencing", soft-failure when comms are lost etc, combined with a licensing system for the larger drones.

A measure I'd like to see is manufacturers being compelled to "life" the software that controls them, that way periodic and unavoidable software updates could be used either to introduce new limits on their flight-envelope, or indeed could render a drone permamently grounded if it enters controlled airspace, for example.

Some back-and-forth telemetry would be helpful here so that a misused drone would effectively report itself for entering controlled airspace, identify the licensed owner and ground itself until the issue was resolved.

Currently, as far as drones are concerned, we're in a situation akin to that of commercial aviation in the 1920's and 30's, where technical advances were creating new problems at a faster rate than the legislators could deal with. Aircraft aviation survived and thrived despite this, and in turn we'll lean to live with drones as the legislation matures to contend with the them.

There is, no doubt a certain attrition-rate of drones in private/clueless hands, and so it's reasonable to suppose that within a short number of years the great majority of the currently umlimited drones will no longer be flyable.

The trick is going to be legislating without clobbering other spheres of UAV's- eg RC model flying, (which has an excellent safety record) as "collateral damage" in dealing with the muppets flying drones close to commercial traffic....

The most popular drones already have the telementary. All the systems have to do is report it...

It all depends who you want to stop. The 'drone' user with more money than sense whose sole exposure to news is MTV buys a drone then plays with it with no comprehension of any legal limitations or requirements. OR The drone user who is technically capable and malicious. The first is easy in multiple ways such as those you propose. The malicious technically capable user will not be prevented as they will immediately work around any attempts at jamming or geofencing. Imagine a rooted smart phone being used for communications, navigation and video feed.
A lot more realistic thought needs to be given to how to deal with these issues.

I would think that the "greatest good for the greatest number" applies here. The simple fact is that no legislation or technical approach is going to forestall all possible malicious use of light-aircraft/gliders/drones/rc models.


However, if we can exclude the ignorant/clueless from operating drones in conflict with commercial traffic, a great deal of progress will have been made. So keeping drones away from airfields and out of controlled airspace should be the immediate priority; and the previously mentioned measures would take of, in time, the great majority of such "mischievious" (albeit hideously irresponsible) near-misses.


As far as the "malicious technically capable user" goes, once the issue has been reduced to contending with these individuals only, it's more easily dealt with by bringing standard Police methods one the craft is brought down. If modifying a drone to permit it to be flown in controlled airspace were then a specific offence, then these - relatively rare individuals - can be dealt with as a manageable problem.


We need to bear in mind though, that whilst distracting and potentially dangerous, they're rather less dangerous, statisically, than light-aircraft blundering into controlled airspace. I once had the bejezus scared out of me by of all things a helium-filled greyish party-balloon, which flashed past within inchess of my Pa28 before my brain could process what it was. Silly now, but at the time it frightened me fartless.

In short, measures to ameliorate the "drone problem" will come, but it's merely one of a number of distracting/dangerous unexpected things we can collide with, from birds, balloons, drones, light aircraft upwards; so it's probably worth keeping a sense of proportion about them.


What I fond more interesting, in the light of Solly Sullenberger's ditching, is how ETOP's has skewed the percieved risks of such collisions. When 4 engines was the norm, the loss of a single engine was not overtly serious, but now, as no-one apparantly foresaw that Geese might fly in formations sufficient to stop two engines, the airline industry has become rather more alert about anything that can be ingested and which might suddenly make 50% - or more - of their engines nauseous or worse. Hence the current 'attack of the vapours' over drones, I suspect.

And thats just the wing tip !


https://www.facebook.com/peixotoimov...55346759580783

It's a fake

http://www.snopes.com/drone-strike-video/

Been done to death that one. Totally fake. Amazes me how all of this regulation and certification is required by the CAA but they can't police it at all. I even offered to be involved in the CAA Drone dept. No salary, just expenses, investigating drone incidents. As a responsible drone user and PfCO holder I am constantly astounded by the stupidity of those drone users who post their videos on YouTube, yet nothing is done. Ok, every once in a while a police force 'may' do something about it, but it's ridiculous to even think you'd be caught and prosecuted for flying a drone dangerously. The police would rather have their little fat traffic cops hiding in bushes in a village trying to catch someone doing 33mph. That gives them some income. Total joke. Any software on a drone can be bypassed, believe me. If someone wants to use a drone maliciously, they will. If ignorance is the cause of incidents then education is the key. The more DJI limit the software in their products, the more other companies will start to sell less limited drones. just my 2c worth.

CGN approach slowing down traffic, starting holdings and then switching runway after departing traffic reports drone over OM RWY 14L.

As the threat surely isn't limited to the "commercial a/c" aspect of this topic's title: a serious drone midair with a Black Hawk:
Sept2017 pics: drone hits Blackhawk helicopter over New York, debris embedded in fuselage

Reported damage to two of the main rotor blades and oil cooler after hitting the side of the Black Hawk with a piece of the drone recovered after landing.

News report of drone strike in Quebec
 

Drone strike report:

Plane sustained minor damage after hitting drone near Quebec City: Garneau - Montreal - CBC News

Another in Argentina it appears
 

https://www.aeroinside.com/item/1053...7-drone-strike

Argentinas 738. Pic on Simon's site but hard to determine impact point.

Brazilian CGH closed for 2 hours
 

Due to a drone presence, CGH airport was closed for 2 hours:

Drone causa cancelamento de voos em Congonhas por duas horas - São Paulo - Estadão [in portuguese]

Preliminary investigations couldn't find the responsible.

Hints of proposed legislation in the UK

Drone users in the UK will be required to do safety awareness tests as part of planned new legislation on their usage.

Police will also be given new powers to crack down on illegal use of the unmanned aerial vehicles.

UK drone users to sit safety tests under new law - BBC News

Communities all over the U.S. are passing local drone laws. They are all illegal. Only the FAA has jurisdiction over UAVs. In fact, the FAA's regulatory powers were diminished in September in a law suit brought by an attorney in Massachusetts. A federal judge ruled that noncommercial UAVs below the threshold weight need not be registered with the FAA, nor can the FAA charge a fee. The operational rules stand, though: noncommercial UAVs cannot be operated above 400 feet, agl, and not within 5 miles of an airport unless the airport authority gives permission.

In my local community in California the city counsel has passed a more restrictive code, which is unenforceable. One of the city's restrictions is a UAV cannot be operated within 500 feet horizontally of city-designated public buildings. I recently asked for the list of these buildings and am being stonewalled. Probably because the city manager failed to make any such designations.

My wife was shopping at the local WalMart yesterday. She said there were boxes and boxes of the "GPS Shadow Drone" on sale for $99.60. The new year should be interesting around here. We don't have enough local law enforcement to enforce the traffic laws, much less chase down errant drones.

Says it all really. We have laws new and old to cover almost everything, yet they are useless if not enforced.

A little bit more than hints. Here is the news story on the UK government website that is behind the BBC article -

http://www.gov.uk/government/news/ne...-use-of-drones

Most of the stuff the government are saying was in their response to their drone consultation back in July.

http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads...t-response.pdf

The one thing that I haven't seen before is this -

"New measures will also make it mandatory for drone owners to register to improve accountability."

Good luck with that.

An expression involving genies and bottles springs to mind ...

I think registration is only going to be mandatory for new purchases. Makes sense as they can enforce it through the machine setup/registration process. Mind you I think they could enforce on most existing machines the same way.

'They' will not be able to retrospectively enforce these regulations. They also do not apply to 'model aircraft' clubs. Anyone with a malevolent intent can easily build their own remote controlled aircraft (RPAS) and of course if they do that there is no reason to use the standard communications and control channels, a simple cellular network number is all that is required. So all the jamming of standard frequencies will not work.
Why is it that bureaucrats think that passing a law against something will stop people with malevolent intent? :ugh:

Having looked through the new proposals published by Gov.UK, I am still at a loss regarding the definition of a "Drone" vs a model aeroplane or helicopter.
I can see where they are trying to go with this, and appreciate that the 250g lower limit will rule out the gadget shop toys.
Can anyone see where it is defined?
A 5kg helicopter flown badly (or flown well, in a bad place) is probably going to end up messily but harmlessly re-kitted.
But a 5kg moulded sailplane that "gets away", would be a different matter if it gets in the way of GA or airline traffic.
Note here, I am not in any way suggesting we regulate RC model flyers beyond the existing codes of practise.

EASA and the CAA use 'drone' as a synonym for unmanned aircraft. The coming changes will affect model aircraft. See EASA NPA 2017-05 2.3.1.5 (page 9).

If you fly a unmanned aircraft over 250g, you will be required to register. See table 2 on page 15 of the NPA.

There are hooks in the NPA that the DfT/CAA can hang exemptions for the model aircraft associations on, see article 14.

'The bureaucrats' don't think regulation and legislation will stop people with malevolent intent. Legislation will, however, make it harder to implement that intent; will reduce (over time) the availability of the hardware to those with ill-intent; and will provide law enforcement and the judiciary with a robust legal framework to prosecute those who abuse the technology.

In other words, the same sensible legal framework that demands responsible ownership and use of any other potentially dangerous technology - like guns, cars and aircraft.

I'm sure that, behind the bluster, you understand the underlying principle that the more potential your behavior has to harm others, the more responsibility you have to behave intelligently.

Legislation takes time to catch up with technology and to fully understand the risk. When hobby UAVs were seen as 'just fun toys' there was no need for legislative control. Ten years on, the law needs to reflect widespread public fears that a hobby UAV could bring down an airliner. If these fears are unfounded, the law will never be used, and in time will drop off the statute book.

sxjack: thanks for the useful reference.
I can see a few test cases coming up...

I dont think the word hints was unfair. So far it's a wish or intention, not actual legislation

The current government proposed other laws or actions it has since dropped or not realised, and who knows whether the same government will be there in a few months time?

Off-topic: Boris Johnson said a year ago he wants to support Turkey's candidacy to join the EU, but looks unlikely to ever have the chance.

The draft Drone Bill, which will be published next spring, will give officers the right to ..

Pedantry corner: not quite, the draft bill is a proposal, for consultation, and the powers arise when legislation is actually passed, either the same as originally drafted or subsequently amended.

If _you_ wanted to be malevolent with a UAS it may increase the work factor to have legislation changing the software and hardware of the sold UAS. The same for the bureaucrats and politicians who are daily amazed by the cellular telephones. However, for the average hobbyist in both model aircraft and software using different frequencies and streamed video to control their UAS is as simple as rooting their iPhones. Let the security services jam WiFi and GPS around an airport and guess who is going to have problems.

While I understand the intent - the cures being proposed need to be altogether better thought out by experts in all the areas affected or the cures could be worse than the disease.