G-EUYM BA905 landed 1417Z (1517L), Airprox report quotes 1416Z for the time of the incident. What report are you reading?

My mistake Dave.
Although I read the CAA report, I was also looking at the BBC report.
Bad move! The BBC report says 14:16 BST. So I looked back through movements around 13:16 Z.
I should have paid attention to the time on the CAA report!

Semantics perhaps, but was it a radio-controlled helicopter, or was it a multi-rotor (Drone...)? There's a difference...

If the airprox board can't tell the difference, or use the correct terminology, then we're all in trouble...:ugh:

The two aren't mutully exclusive.

No, but if it was a helicopter it's very unlikely to have been flying on GPS. Either an R/C heli out of any control at all, or perhaps just a heli flyer being stupid.

If it was a multirotor, it's more likely to have been a nutter off the street being stupid...

Like I said, the actual type of vehicle is important, and I would have thought the airprox board would have been more careful with their choice of words...

Flying either manually at 700' would be extremely difficult, and impossible to judge if the vehicle was anywhere near (in height) to an airliner.

Drone/Heli/Multicopter
 

As a fixed wing RC aviator of 10 yrs standing I have had much joy and merriment watching RC heli pilots chase their recalcitrant wobble wokkers around the sky. Believe me any RC helicopter more than 400ft above launch point or 400 yards away from the pilot would be an unstable beastie and Mr Newton's laws being what they are the damn thing would fall out of the sky.
The incident suggests therefore a multirotor GPS capable craft with a decent battery performance. £350 from Maplins


Once again technical innovation has outstripped the legislation

Nige

TBH with 140 (?) ish knots of closure on an object drone/RC helicopter size I'm not sure whether the originator of the report would really be able to tell with 100% confidence what it was, other than something went past with rotors on it, so I'd be inclined to cut the airprox board a bit of slack......

If the pilot were approaching at around 130kts, could he or she recognise anything that small with any reliability? Imagine such a thing placed on the hard shoulder of a motorway, and you drive past at 150 mph, would you see anything at all?

Nevertheless, I'm glad to see the torch of scrutiny shone on these gadgets and their daft owners (what happens if they fly out of range or the batteries in the controller fade?). Maybe Captain Sully could do a lecture tour on handling the inevitable....

In which case that should be made clear. The media have jumped on this as a 'drone' event - it might not be...

If it wasn't identified as a drone or a helicopter, it becomes a UFO, and then there is LOTS of paperwork involved.

Not unreasonably, given that the UKAB initially referred to it as a UAV.

You say that half in jest, Herod, but you hit a nerve with me as that possibility has been on my mind.

In the May before the London Olympics, I was riding down an Islington back street one morning and was taking it easy over the ubiquitous speed humps. About to cross the last, I suddenly became aware of a moving black thing directly ahead and above; I initially thought, in the moment, that it was an exotic beetle flapping my way.

I fixed my gaze upon it and passed directly underneath; it was about 18" above my head. It was an object composed of two 5-bladed propellers, one atop the other and contra-rotating, made of a matt-black material with no visible joins. The propeller blades were long ovals and not pitched in any way, the whole thing being maybe 6" across at the very most.

It was absolutely ridiculous, no way could this thing fly. Yet it was sitting there as if cemented into the air with the props rotating slowly enough for me to count the blades. No wires, no power source, no visible join in the shaft between the props (very closely stacked).

Knowing that I'd just seen something breaking all the rules of normal, I rode on and didn't look back. The Heathrow "drone" near-miss report rang that bell for me pretty strongly, I have to say.

The Airprox board classification is very strange. The Board assessed it as Risk A but the ERC ranking was only 1. One of them must be wrong.

This is what your up against...scary stuff
 

:eek:

Well the poster seems to have learnt his lesson but quite why he ever thought it was good idea in the first place baffles me.

I'll make a fortune selling these photos
 

Reported in Australian news on Thursday that a man was to be fined $850 for flying a drone above the scene of a siege in Melbourne's western suburbs recently.

Police were apparently negotiating with a man holed up in a house during a nine-hour siege, when the drone crashed into a power line and fell to the ground, nearly hitting an officer.

Police confiscated the drone and handed the case to CASA to prosecute.
As might be expected, CASA said they believed it was a member of the public trying to get pictures of the police operation.

"[It] hit a power line and [he] lost control of the drone, which really emphasises the danger of taking drones to inappropriate places like situations where emergency services are working"


Combine greed, thoughtlessness and a modicum of stupidity and the possibilities for disaster are unlimited.

Possible useful utilisation for delivering small parcels ???
 

The locals have the right idea:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/michaelrusch...552856_4530497

In similar vein...

Chinese military's response to unannounced commercial drones? Blow 'em out of the sky:

The Chinese Military's Response to Unannounced Drones: Blow 'Em Out of the Sky - WSJ

Spotted on another forum

Going to be a lot of incidents when the idiots open their Christmas presents. Apparently in UK, drones are the hottest choice of present for the man who has everything (except common sense). Yep, definitely time for a high-powered catapult and a stock of ball-bearings. ;)

Where I live, every drone has to have a nameplate attached with all the details of the owner.

Simple yet effective no ?

El Grifo. Good idea; a simple solution. Further to my post regarding catapults, I would like to pose a legal question. Suppose a drone is flying over my house, and obviously photographing activity in my backyard. If I shoot it down with a catapult and the act is captured on the drone's camera, what is the legal position? Just asking; no intention of doing it.

So, here's a question!

If a drone is seen operating in breech of CAA regulations would it be acceptable to target it with a laser to ruin any film being taken?
I can hardly see the operator complaining to the CAA about it

Herod looks to catapults. How about a crossbow with a tethered bolt. Then the offending article might be able to be pulled back and stripped for spares. Legal advice needed first.

There are no (criminal) laws in the UK specific to privacy or aircraft noise/nuisance. There are strictly enforced laws however regarding endangering aircraft and criminal damage. So if a UAV is hovering over your property maintaining the legal separation distance in the airspace that you do not personally own, then criminal law lies in favour of the UAV, as it does for any other aircraft. In civil law there might be some redress but that is, as yet, pretty much untested in the UK courts. Catapults and shotguns may not quite be the answer.

I'm not sure many UAVs carry film these days: a bit last century I think.

All are digital, upscale models stream live video wirelessly.

You would be guilty of criminal damage. If it fell on someone and killed them you could/would probably be charged with manslaughter. Even if they were flying illegally.

There are rules in the UK. See CAP 722...

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP722.pdf

For example...

CAP 722 is a guidance document: the rules are fully detailed in the Air Navigation Order, CAP 393, particularly Articles 166 and 167 (and 168 if you are considering firing rockets at them).

Articles 73 and 74 refer to endangering an aircraft and operating an aircraft negligently.

Your evidence that it is an illegally operated drone is only your own opinion. There is always the possibility that the drone is legitimately operated but has been given duff information (map coordinates). That is hardly an offence worthy of shooting down by Joe Public.

Although very unlikely, there is also the possibility that the Police or security services are operating the drone, or it is being operated on their behalf, e.g. looking for the perpetrator of a crime or a missing person. Just suppose the one you hit lost control and caused a car to swerve and hit pedestrians? Is that the fault of the drone pilot?

As Peter G-W says, ANOs regarding the endangering of aircraft apply. You have no control over where the drone will go after hitting it.

New rules comming in Australia.

Drone rules to be toughened in new year following several Australian incidents | theage.com.au

Fortunately I live in the middle of fields that I own. I also own a shotgun. Job done.

Think you are perhaps deluding yourself Londonman !!

How so, El G? :confused: I'm a very good shot :D Don't be confused by my user name. When I say fields I do mean fields. Not Hyde Park !!

On a serious note, I would have thought that these drones, especially the larger ones, were a heaven sent terrorist tool. Just park yourself near the end of the runway being used for take-off. No amount of legislation will prevent that sadly.

As someone who is an aviation enthusiast as well as a drone pilot myself, I find some posts in this thread insulting. I imagine a fair few of you are Hobby pilots as well, which means you understand the situation.

It's like me outright saying that every pilot here must be of the same competency of the AF447 crew. It's outright slander and considering the first P in PPRUNE is Professional, I think some here should bow their heads in shame.

There are three very distinct groups under drone pilots - Hobbyists, "Amateur Photographers" and "Hipsters - AKA Morons"

I fly my drone responsibly, as do many. Unfortunately, the minority ruin it for the masses. 2 ways to improve this are startling obvious, yet as history has shown us, we won't act until lives are lost - it actually has a lot of parrallels with the aviation industry as a whole.

• Make the Bnuc-s course compulsory for model pilots so it covers general flying and not just commercial use, whilst making the cost £50-100 instead of £1500!!!!

• As suggested here earlier, create a registration system for UAS vehicles. Have an online database with owner details.

• Hold shops accountable to ensuring customers have said qualification / complete the registration.

Whether you like it or not, UAS / UAVs are here to stay and will only increase in size / performance / lower costs. The fact is, you get morons in all walks of life - be it Drone pilots or Commerical Airline pilots and all other job sectors for that matter. The discussion is better pointing to legalisation and helping the genuine people who are passionate hobby pilots clear the bad reputation of the minority, whilst making the idiots accountable for their poor decision making, which will ultimately get people killed.

Also - to those citing terrorists using these as bombs - Are you actually for real? Yep - that's exactly what they will be used for. After all, over the last 10 years, all of those 1/5 scale petrol cars which are capable of 70mph have been cruising along the M4 bearing the IS Flag on frequent bombing runs.......

RiSq Add another category to your list.

Professional Videographers and Photographers :ok:

No doubt that in the hands of the masses, Drones will only become a bigger and bigger pest if left uncontrolled.

RiSq

I understand where you are coming from. However, to anyone determined enough none of the suggestions you make will prevent unscrupulous shops selling drones to anyone they feel like - whether or not the customer has any form of formal licence or qualification.

If some people are happy to drive a car without insurance or tax then what makes you think that their counterparts in the drone world won't do exactly the same?

Re your reference to the M4, last time I looked I didn't see any 747's driving down the outside lane !!:)

El Grifo - I neglected to mention those - you are correct. The likelihood is, they have obtained bnuc-s though as they require it to to fly professionally (Commercially) and to seek CAA approval for flight plans. Of course, you only get the bnuc-s after paying out a small fortune as it stands, but gearing up a similar course or a re-structure of the existing one will drastically improve things.

It doesn't help that one person at the CAA tells you one thing, then another tells you something completely different. The CAA needs to get its house in order.

The fact is - you are always going to get people who bend the law and rules. But rooting out the ones deliberately flouting the rules from those who break them unknowingly is half way to solving the problem - no perfectly, but it will help.

You are correct - it won't be the all-in-one solution but it would help a lot and half the issue is education. People don't understand the technology which is in their hands half the time.

Having a system in place would help root out the bad apples from the good though.

Ref my M4 Comment: - Lets face it. If a terrorist wants to blow something up, they will. There were loopholes in the security systems of Aviation and they were exploited. Those holes have now been closed to a ridiculous level and in some instances, at a loss to the average joe. Gone are the days where you could go up to the cockpit and have a look around, arguably denying budding pilots of the future that moment of inspiration and awe - something I'm sure most pilots detest themselves (Ok - you get the annoying spolit PAX, but according to my brother-in-law, it evoked a great sense of pride for him seeing the enjoyment it bought)

Put it this way - If I was an insane terrorist wanting to inflict damage on a massive scale - Aircraft would not be on my agenda, when I could freely carry a backpack onto the subway / underground or Waterloo station at peak times and take out 2-widebody craft Passenger manifests amount of people without the hassle. To carry a hefty payload, you are talking Professional grade drones which run into the thousands of pounds. You are then in a niche, which makes it easier to trace back as well. It's a lot of agro and seems a bit cliche. As I said, I don't see RC cars going under buses in Central london blowing them up - why would drones be any different?

The 9/11 style attack worked - We all now live in fear of the unpredictable. That's more affective than killing a thousand people in a Jihadi's eyes.

Good points, RiSq

I guess I was thinking more of a drone being sucked into one of the engines. Perhaps not as draconian as one loaded with explosive but the knock-on effect re people's willingness to fly might take a severe dent maybe seeing as how drones can be bought in Maplin's and be perceived by Joe Public as too easy to repeat.

RiSq

All your points are all fine and Dandy, but:

Why?? What will that achieve? How will this stop the nutters flying on the LHR approach...?

Is the LHR nutter really going to bother?

Many of the vidoes on YT showing flagrant breaches of the ANO are filmed using 'drones' built from components. Google 'Team Black Sheep' for a start - they'll even sell you a kit, posted from outside the UK.
Do you ban/register the sale/import of brushless motors? ESCs? Props? Carbon tube? Nuts and bolts??

:ugh: