In could be useful for a drone, as it would then be able to automatically get out of the way of nearby aircraft. And, given it can be done with a $15 USB stick and a tiny amount of CPU power, probably not a bad thing to add to them... there aren't many people who'd want an aircraft to hit their drone.

Of course, you'd still need to add ADS-B transmitters to all the aircraft around here that don't transmit their location...

That could work for big drones which require specialized motors and batteries, but, pretty soon, a basic drone will just require:

1. A 3D printer.
2. A few pieces of commonplace electrical and electronic gear.
3. Some open-source software downloaded off the Internet.

No sales restrictions are going to stop those becoming ubiquitous. They'll be following people around posting selfies on Facebook before the decade is out.

Edit: BTW, I think there may be a bigger threat to commercial aircraft from drones than colliding with them. VR is suddenly becoming big again as the technology has reached the point where it's technically viable without many of the problems of the past (high cost, low resolution, nausea, etc). Today, if I want to go and visit the wonders of the world, I have to get on a plane and fly there. Ten years from now, I could put on a VR headset, rent a drone, and fly it over the Internet. That tech is only going to get better over time, and will be much cheaper than an airline ticket.

Lords Urge Civilian Drone Database - NATS Blog
 

This entrance on the NATS Blog from the 13th March:

Lords urge civilian drones database | NATS Blog

Dont see how it will stop them 'illegal' flights...

Amazon drone trial gets US regulator approval
 

Picked this off the BBC website this morning

The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has approved Amazon's plans to begin testing drones for online deliveries.

The FAA said it had granted Amazon a certificate for people with pilot's licenses to test the unmanned aircraft.

The drones must be flown at 400 feet or below during daylight hours, and must remain within sight of the pilot.

Under US law, operating drones for commercial purposes is illegal.

However, those rules are under revision by the FAA, which is expected to issue new rules regarding the operation of unmanned aircraft for commercial and recreational purposes.

Amazon had asked the US regulator for approval to begin the tests last July.

In December, the firm warned that it might begin testing the programme - known as Amazon Prime Air - in other countries.

"Without approval of our testing in the United States, we will be forced to continue expanding our Prime Air R&D footprint abroad," wrote Paul Misener, Amazon's vice president of global public policy, in a letter to the FAA at the time.

As part of this ruling, the internet retail giant must also provide data on the number of flights conducted and any other relevant information, on a monthly basis.

How the heck can a delivery drone always remain in sight of the pilot unless the pilot follows it to its destination ???

Not only that but they have to be 'piloted' they are not allowed to automatically fly a trajectory. This approval is meaningless apart confirming that a small UAS can carry a package, and of course the weight must remain within the limit for small UAS.

presumably amazon arranges for a number of deliveries in the operational radius and a van takes them there together with the drone. the driver then oversees the dispatch and recovery process. probably gets another 4p an hour for this extra responsibility....

as for risks of meeting one on finals, on-drone tcas should take care of that.
before long we may all be in slightly larger drones anyway.

T-mobile netherlands to use drones to run network hardware checks
 

see article

T-Mobile Netherlands to use drones to run network hardware checks | Press Wire | News

T-Mobile Netherlands will become the first European operator to use drones to inspect the condition of its network infrastructure.

The operator said that by using drones, it will save time and money on maintenance of its network. The first use of the drone will take place in mid-July.

Across the Netherlands, T-Mobile manages more than 5,000 antenna locations............

@Sunamer

From their site;

Have a look;

Sagetech | Unmanned Transponder Solutions

Opendoor, Sagetech doesn't give prices for the transponders you linked to, one must contact a sales engineer. Does anyone here have any idea of price? I'm guessing it's in the $3,000 to $5,000 range.

I find these transponders very interesting. They're clearly not ready for use just yet, as their certifications are listed as "in-progress". They're also a bit power hungry compared to my Trig. But I'm happy to see that at least one company is working on such items!

Amazon Receives New Delivery Drone Test Approval From U.S. FAA
 

100 mph.....jeez, that's some energy to be dissipated when it crashes into something. Are these Amazon things going to be pilotless as I can't see the economics of a 1:1 relationship between 'driver' and drone.

I can't help but think that society has really lost the plot. Does it really matter if your latest DVD of Game of Thrones takes a day or two longer to reach you?

Drones cut short aerobatic display by SA Air Force
 

From: News24

An unauthorised drone cut short a Silver Falcon aerobatic display at the Rand Show in Johannesburg on Friday, Netwerk24 reported.

A man launched his drone to take aerial photos while the South African Air Force’s Silver Falcon team was busy with its routine above the Nasrec showgrounds.

Air show commentator Brian Emmenis said he immediately requested the person flying the drone to land it.

Emmenis said the Silver Falcons ended the display shortly afterwards, while the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) had been informed about the incident.

It is illegal to fly such a device without authorisation. The drone was reportedly flying higher than 200 feet (60 metres).

Danger

A member of the Silver Falcon team told Netwerk24 such a device could endanger lives if it collided with a plane.

“The Silver Falcons fly at approximately 500km/h. Besides causing damage to the plane it, the debris could hit people. The plane could even crash,” the source said.

Show director Pula Dippenaar said organisers were aware of the incident.

“The Silver Falcons were already busy with their display when the drone was spotted above the trees,” Dippenaar said.

“The air show programme was delayed until the drone operator was found. The incident was in the hands of the relevant authorities for investigation,” she said.

“We are aware that drones are used for photography and we will keep this in mind for future accreditation,” Dippenaar said.

It's just a matter of time before we read about a drone bringing down an airliner.

I hope I'm wrong, but when you look at the frequency of close calls worldwide..this one is a ticking bomb.

Mandatory Strobes will occasionaly seriously adversely affect photography and video applications. Particularly on days where there is airborn water or dust particles as they will be illuminated by the strobes.

Why limit the discussion to drones? e.g. What about model rockets?

What about rifles, of which there are millions in the USA (not so many in Europe, not sure about Russia)?
How many airliners come in with a few bullet holes, or even neat rows of bullet holes? None I've heard of. Imagining problems isn't helping.

You can try banning drones, but it wouldn't work. But you have no chance of banning (in USA) those weapons that could do far more damage and are readily available to people with terror in mind. Americans seem happy to live with that risk.

If it is the nutjobs, who think it's fun to buzz an airliner, you want to contain, why not try some education?

"It is illegal to fly such a device without authorisation. The drone was reportedly flying higher than 200 feet (60 metres) "

Not really sure - they would have canceled the show if there was a stork flying "higher than 60m" ?
Why drones are special ?

(i'm not endorsing what he did , don't fly anything near air traffic should be common knowledge to any RC operator )

Another question
Would THIS "camera drone"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYe9O_qhJWs
get CAA to do some incident paperwork ?

Drone sighting near Manchester Airport diverts flights
 

From the BBC website today (though heaven knows where runway one is)

Flights were diverted for a short time at Manchester Airport after a drone was spotted close to the flight path.
The police helicopter was scrambled at about 11:20 BST after flight crews on two separate planes reported seeing the drone in the airspace.
An investigation was carried out and Runway One closed for 20 minutes but nothing was found, police said.
An airport spokesman said some flights experienced short delays but all operations have now resumed as normal.
John Mayhew, general manager for air traffic services at Manchester Airport, said: "Flying drones in the close vicinity to any airport without permission is completely unacceptable, with the reported sighting causing delays to inbound and outbound traffic and the diversion of a small number aircraft to other airports.
"The matter has now been referred to the police."

Hope (if caught) the drone operator gets landed with the diversion costs. That'll make "their" eyes water.

One way of dealing with drones

Chimpanzee knocks drone out of sky with stick in Netherlands zoo

"Professional Drones"


Some may have seen demonstrations of near future drone operations at Dubai. These look as though people MAY be using drones for cleaning the exterior of skyscrapers. Or some others appeared to be used like helicopters, in a human rescue type operation.


When ? But THEY would want to stay away from aircraft, anyway !

Because they're nutjobs, that's why. Your "education" would be laughed at.

One day, probably fairly soon, there will be a multiple loss of life resulting from a collision between a drone and an aircraft. It will be either accidental or deliberate. If US citizens are among the dead, global action to ban the sale of use of these things other than to and by responsible, trained people with a clearly useful purpose will swiftly follow. If European citizens are involved, the same action will eventually be taken, but the bureaucracy will take far, far longer.

What a pity that, as always, we are waiting for the bodies to pile up before acting forcefully to remove a known and obvious hazard. (EG - empty fuel tank ignition.)

No-one has a "right" to own and fly these things for their amusement, where and how they choose. Or if they do, I have an equal right to destroy (12-bore is loaded and ready) any that infringe my space.

I saw a drone being played with in a street in old Gdansk about 10 days ago, narrowly missing people including children, until it was caught and destroyed by an angry group. The stunned, impotent fury of the morons who were disturbing the peace with it was a joy to watch.

How else would you measure safety?

The absence of bodies confirms that it's safe enough.

Do you have some other measure that can be applied that is descriptive enough other than emotional words fit for the news?

Over 50 years of thousands of RC models flying with no injuries of any person in any aircraft should convince us drones are no great danger. Sully would have rather hit a drone than those darn geese.

Traditionally, RC aeroplanes took time and skill to construct and equal time and skill to learn to fly. It was quite an expensive hobby, requiring skill and dedication. Therefore, those that practised it did so with forethought and an understanding of what they were doing. Indeed, the majority were aviation enthusiasts too. Flying mostly took place at club sites.

Now any fool can walk into any high-street store and for a few pounds can purchase a large flying machine that they can fly from their back garden, with no skill required. Their thought processes don't venture beyond their own selves to consider the danger that their actions may present to others.

Tell me, what'll be the difference between a drone going through a turbofan engine and a goose?

I was the captain of one of the jets involved in Monday's incident at Manchester. On a gin-clear day we had to hold and waste plenty of fuel whilst the issue was resolved. We landed to note the huge queue of aircraft waiting for departure. The drone was large enough to be visible to the naked eye even though it was a couple of miles from the airfield on the departure track. Thankfully the only harm done was to the environment, as several tonnes of kerosene was burnt to no end. It won't always be so. I've seen several drones and one large aerobatic RC model flying in sight of Heathrow whilst waiting for departure.

Idiot, chav culture. The same mentality that causes the morons to shine increasingly high-powered lasers at us at night.........

"Now any fool can walk into any high-street store and for a few pounds can purchase a large flying machine that they can fly from their back garden, with no skill required. Their thought processes don't venture beyond their own selves to consider the danger that their actions may present to others."

You are describing a bird brain .But i don't think airtraffic is ever diverted because of one bird 2 miles away . Why drones are special ?
I think there is much more "drone phobia" than real danger

Whatever , chances are before something silly would happen there will be sufficient arrests and legislation to make flying the hooby grade ones indesirable.
With the proffesional ones there is another thing , robotic aircrafts are desirable and sometime in the future , as their number increases same things that happens to the manned ones will happen to them (mid air collisions)

Fatalities from model aircraft
 

Regrettably there have been numerous injuries and some deaths from operation of model aircraft. Admittedly I know of none from a collision between a model and a commercial passenger operation, but there certainly was a death of a hang glider pilot in southern England 20 or 30 years ago. We should not be complacent about this.

Two articles in today's NY Times about drones, but neither involving aircraft. In one instance a drone, possibly laced with cesium, was found on the roof of the Japanese prime minister's office (http://goo.gl/HP6f5g). The other is about drones being used to smuggle contraband items into prisons (http://goo.gl/i4V1eP). Still, they do highlight the doubled-edged sword nature of these devices.

Please stop likening drones to birds.

Birds:

Light, squidgy and mostly feathers. When they impact the airframe they usually just go "splat!" They rarely cause any damage. We hit them regularly. I fly about 800 shorthaul hours per year and report bird strikes on average twice per. Most recently were five sparrows on departure from Athens. Most spectacular was a pigeon directly into the centre of the FO's windshield. If they hit a pitot tube then it's a bit more serious, as the gore can block the tube and cause our airspeed indicators to fail.

Most birds ingested into modern turbofans cause no damage whatsoever. Eighty-plus percent of the air flowing through the fan is bypass flow. The fan on the front is simply a glorified propellor. Only about a fifth of the air actually goes through the core. The soft bird is minced by the whirling knife blades of the fan and spat out in the cold, bypass flow. Only in the unlikely event of a small or medium sized bird going through core of the engine is damage or failure likely.

Large birds through the engine are a slightly different matter as their weight can damage the carefully balanced fan, bending blades and leading to rapid failure. I witnessed a heron go through a (Monarch?) 757 motor at Manchester a few years ago. The resulting sheet of flame as it disintegrated was terrifying.

Most birds, however, have some level of intelligence. Certainly more than those individuals presently flying drones within a few hundred meters of airports. When they see a larger bird, their first reaction is to avoid it and avoid becoming lunch. Again, larger birds have less fear. We regularly see swans crossing Heathrow at low level. But that's why airports employ bird scarers.

Drones:

Any drone hitting the fuselage, wings or empennage will cause damage. The heavier the drone, the greater the damage. Any drone going through the fan will destroy the engine.

We have legislation that makes it illegal to operate any flying device within a certain distance and height from an aerodrome. A few, professional drone operators undertake the proper training and respect the law. But the great majority neither know nor care about said laws. When a large and heavy drone can be purchased for a couple of hundred pounds or dollars by the same individuals who twenty years ago bought minimoto bikes to ride on residential streets and roads, do you really think you'll be able to persuade them to operate them with care and caution and within the law?

Very true but I was comparing the standard cheap (1000$ , 1 kg) drone to a single large bird .Both are dangerous but diverting traffic because of one or the other seems to be excessive . Better call the cops, usually a drone operator is very conspicuous , then the press will crucify him and scare the likeminded others .
200$ will get you a 100-200 gram toy , unable to climb over 20-30m and with some 8mins autonomy .

just a snippit quote from a post above.

But way off the mark!!

Nobody worries much about bird feathers .... it's what holds the feathers together that causes all the bird damage problems.

At least drones aren't expected to come in flocks and take out all your engines at once.

Summary

some birds cause damage and are a lot more populated than drones.


drones are expected to cause damage and are extremely rare to be hit

We need data to sort this out.

anybody willing to fly a four engine B747 into a flock of two drones and document the effects?

In this kind of collisions mass is all that counts . Every drone past 500g is dangerous . But what startles me is the loudness around the perceived threat to the passenger aviation (ridiculously small because of redundancies and the small intersection of flight envelopes - and that intersection is in protected and guarded space , at the airports ) and the relative silence from the small recreational aircraft and heli operators . They are flying closer to drones and probably have seen enough to judge them better . My 2 cents - drones are photographing earth objectives , closer means more resolution , there is no point on going past 100m alt . Ofc there will be some nuts breaking the norm , once every a couple of months in all the world but remember that large birds are breaking it daily at hundreds of airports .

The Bible, John, Chapter 11 Verse 35 says all that can be said about this view of how to know when something is safe. You could say the same about Trident missiles. Perfectly harmless, they are; look, no bodies.

We should not talk too much about things, we do not know too much about
 

As a professional pilot since 30 years and former RC hobby pilot, as a youth, I am surprised about part of the nonsense posted here....

For example: "Somebody could clearly see the drone in a distance of 2 miles." I assume NM.
Congratulations to your good vision.

I fly a big bird for a major carrier and I fly a DJI drone since one year. I even take it with me on some trips where I can fly it by local law. By law, you got to have in my country insurance for RC aircrafts. ( 60-70 US$/year). I think a good idea. But I think the idea of the insurance was mostly for the risk of damage on the ground.

The drone I am flying is very advanced and very stable in flight. You let the controls go and it stands still. Most of the time people use drones, they are hovering and then move to another position slowly. They are slow moving because video is better if you are not flying with max speed ( ca. 40mph ).

The drone has a distance and height information transmitted all the time to your control device. If you are flying higher then 150m (450ft) you got a problem to see your drone. Flying out of clear sight is unlawful in every country I had been flying. The maximum distance I had been flying in a height of 55m was 300m and this was definitely too far, only with my heading information transmitted as well, I could fly back. The drone was to small and was way smaller then the size of a needlepin. ( I tested this only for you ! :) )

To me the drone is no thread other then a kite, if it is flown within eyesight. If you are flying outside of eyesight you are risking loosing it.

It might be a thread to helicopters flying low. My hometown is next to a clinic with two helicopter stationed there. Yes they are flying often below the minimum required above cities, but if they would fly over cities in the allowed altitude there shouldn´t be a problem.

Talking about real drones ( military style ) I definitely think we should imply more regulations here. These drones scare me more then the little toys you can buy.

Something that scares me too, is the weatherballons that I had already two near miss with in cruise flight. The just pass by in an altitude where you do not expect anything.

Last but not least, I would forbid bird flying in an altitude of 7500feet, this is dangerous.
Had a birdstrike that damaged the front of my wing. Rubberboot was O.K., but behind the boot, the material was crumbled in the size of a football.

If drones stay away from airports, which most better drones have in their software implemented ( nofly zones and altitude restrictions in the vicinity )
I think this is fine to fly.

As a helicopter pilot I would try to avoid altitudes below 150m when cruising, but I think safe pilots prefer higher altitudes anyway.

Otherwise, ban kite flying as well and get everything out of the sky except us.
By the way, the most sold drone, a DJI Vision drone has a weight of less then 1200 gramms and a size of 35cm with props installed and 24cm without. And the body of the drone is even smaller.

Something I also want to explain here, you usually got a wide angle mini camera on the drones. With a wide-angle camera, everything appears further away and you got to stay closer to the object if you are making a video or picture. If you go to an altitude of 75meter you already got a very, very wide view. More then you probably want.

Come with me and I show you how great this hobby is.

We should not talk too much about things, we do not know too much about
 

Well, I prostrate myself before you and your superior knowledge. I've only held my ATPL for twenty years (although I had a licence and flew some varied and interesting machinery seven years prior to going commercial). And I presently only skipper a narrow-body jet for a major carrier. And I only flew RC aircraft, as a kid/youth, for about ten years. And it was my First Officer who first spotted the drone as we taxied in.

But I must have imagined: seeing it myself, the queue of traffic (all heavies and mediums) waiting to depart 05L as some pillock flew his drone at approximately 1000' at 2nm on the extended centreline, the further delays to departures as the departure runway was switched to 23R with a 7kt tailwind and the subsequent police helicopter that was dispatched to find the numpty.

I apologise for talking about things that I do not know much about.....

Hmm
 

Something is off here . The visual resolution for human eye is 3-4 arcmins . And this is when are looking hard at the object in cause , not glancing it from the sky . 4 arcmins equals aproximatively 3.5 meters at 2 miles . I think what you have seen wasn't the drone , but the police helicopter. As for the "drone" a party ballon blown by the slow wind inside the airport would fit the scenario nicely .

This baby UAV seems very well-behaved while it is sucking in fuel in midair:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=21&v=rIRwsOG_AYQ

I am sure it must have been mentioned before in this thread, but UAV's, just like aircraft, are probably as safe/unsafe as their operators

Facts.

Drones which can achieve more than a garden distance flight away costs $1000 and up. SO a few pounds model will only get you a few meters away.

You cannot see them at more than 300 meters distance even with binoculars so the ability to see one at 2 miles is not likely.

Anything larger than the size of a football and the costs spiral upwards very rapidly. Way beyond any chav's means.

Airport police to drones
 

Few days old...

London airport police to use surveillance drones - BBC News

Not sure if this has been reported already - but an aircraft on approach to Love Field encountered a drone at approximately 4-600ft.

Virgin America Pilot Reports Seeing Drone on Approach Into Dallas Love Field

A Virgin America pilot reported seeing a quadcopter drone ascend above him Tuesday night while on approach into Dallas Love Field Airport, city officials and the FAA say. According to a statement from City Manager Jose Torres, Dallas police were notified by the Love Field tower that a pilot on Virgin Flight 769 from New York LaGuardia to Dallas reported seeing the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) as they passed over the 19-story Crescent Hotel.

Video report here - with ATC recording:

Virgin America Pilot Reports Seeing Drone on Approach Into Dallas Love Field | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth