|
DRONES AND BLUE ANGELS
I note here that in the Seattle WA area, we have an event called SEAFAIR. Basically hydroplane races- and years ago BA flew its prototype 707 over Lake washington and did a slow roll during that event.
Anyhow , for years, part of the celebration involves the Blue Angels who practice on Thurs and Friday for their show on Sat and Sunday. ( july 31 thru aug 2nd is the SEAFAIR and Aug 1st and 2nd is the Airshow. For practice sessions, they close the interstate hiway over the lake to prevent accidents, and during the actual show. During practice, they pass over my house at something less than 1000 feet- in formation :) Local TV is already trying to make public that NO drones/planes/etc in a 5 to 10 mile radius of the lake are allowed to fly for about an hour PERIOD . Reason should be obvious. The airspace is closed- down to lake level ( about 20 feet above sea level ). The Angels make passes at around 100 feet above the lake at 400 plus, and do some formation flying at something around 400-500 feet. UPDATE- Low pass over beach sends umbrellas and stuff flying http://www.grindtv.com/random/blue-a...VETCYgX4dIE.97 If one looks close- in the top left side about midway thru, can catch a glimpse of the Angels low pass - ' sneak pass ? ' Even a small drone impacting at that speed can be deadly. And keep in mind that with the close formations used, the pilots fly on the leader for position. The chances of the leader spotting a small drone at 200 300 feet during various passes is slim to none. They have already announced they will have bucu spotters and survellience posts around the lake and a ways out. Lets all hope that the local idiots do nothing stupid. And that should also apply to whereever the Angels fly. |
Authorities have said that drones have delayed the aerial response to the fires on a freeway in California. I wonder if any of these are operated by news gathering agencies.
After an excellent landing etc... |
Authorities have said that drones have delayed the aerial response to the fires on a freeway in California. I wonder if any of these are operated by news gathering agencies. Above spectacular wildfire on freeway rises new scourge: drones By Michael Martinez, Paul Vercammen and Ben Brumfield, CNN Updated 6:10 PM ET, Sat July 18, 2015 Phelan, California (CNN)—Of all the elements they must battle in a wildfire, firefighters face a new foe: drones operated by enthusiasts who presumably take close-up video of the disaster. Five such "unmanned aircraft systems" prevented California firefighters from dispatching helicopters with water buckets for up to 20 minutes over a wildfire that roared Friday onto a Los Angeles area freeway that leads to Las Vegas. Helicopters couldn't drop water because five drones hovered over the blaze, creating hazards in smoky winds for a deadly midair disaster, officials said. The North Fire torched 20 vehicles on Interstate 15 and incited panic among motorists who fled on foot on the freeway Friday. The wildfire continued to burn uncontrollably Saturday, scorching 3,500 acres with only 5% containment in San Bernardino County, officials said. Drones hovering over wildfires is a new trend in California, and on Saturday, fire officials condemned the operators of "hobby drones," as officials labeled them. It was unclear Saturday whether authorities would launch an investigation into the five drones. "Fortunately, there were no injuries or fatalities to report, but the 15 to 20 minutes that those helicopters were grounded meant that 15 to 20 minutes were lost that could have led to another water drop cycle, and that would have created a much safer environment and we would not have seen as many citizens running for their lives," said spokesman Eric Sherwin of the San Bernardino County Fire Department. The drones got away, and firefighters resumed their water drops by chopper. "We can't confirm who was running drones, and we did not collect any of the drones because our focus was on fighting the fire," Sherwin added. Firefighters disdain drones buzzing over their work sites. At a national level, how to regulate drones and their flight paths are an ongoing controversy, especially as private industry pushes the Federal Aviation Administration for more freedom to use drones in commerce. "Please stop flying hobby drones in the area," U.S. Forest Service spokeswoman Gerrelaine Alcordo said about the wildfire site. "We can't risk the choppers colliding with them. We could have loss of life." The FAA has placed temporary flight restrictions around the wildfires, which means the unmanned aircraft should not fly there without agency approval, spokesman Ian Gregor told CNN by email. He said the FAA promotes voluntary compliance. However, the agency could impose civil fines ranging from $1,000 to $25,000 if someone operates a drone in a dangerous manner or continues to operate one illegally after being contacted by the FAA, he said. Some U.S. Forest Service guidance with a poster (Smokey the Bear ad campaign coming soon I would guess): Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest - Alerts & Notices |
RIAT Fairford has signs banning them - wording is very comprehensive. Won't stop people outside the perimeter.
|
|
Drones at RIAT
The better drones have microcode which knows about airports and won't let them fly nearby.
|
Drones at RIAT
Originally Posted by msjh
(Post 9054441)
The better drones have microcode which knows about airports and won't let them fly nearby.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8834171 http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9028368 And I'd be very surprised if Fairford was one of the pre-programmed exclusion zones, given that there are only a few hundred of them, worldwide. |
Drone pilots warned after close call with passenger jet
From the BBC web site this morning
Drone pilots warned after close call with passenger jet - BBC News A "near miss" between a passenger jet and a drone has prompted warnings about safe use of the hobby aircraft. An Airbus A320's wing passed 6m (20ft) below a drone hovering at Heathrow, said the Civil Aviation Authority. It said drone pilots would face prosecution if they put the safety of other aircraft at risk. News about the mid-air encounter comes only days after a Lufthansa jet nearly collided with a drone on the approach to Warsaw's international airport. Prison terms The CAA said it had recorded six other incidents between May 2014 and March 2015 at airports around the UK in which drones and piloted craft almost collided. "Drone users must understand that when taking to the skies they are entering one of the busiest areas of airspace in the world," said Tim Johnson, director of policy at the CAA, in a statement. Drone owners must be aware of the rules and regulations surrounding the flying of their craft, he said. Recklessly endangering an aircraft is a criminal offence, said Mr Johnson, and those convicted could face a five-year jail sentence. The authority has issued a set of safety guidelines which, it said, should help ensure drone flights do not impinge on other aircraft. The "dronecode" says recreational drone owners should always keep their craft within their line of sight, about 500m (1,640ft), and must not fly higher than 122m. In some of the near-collisions, drones were flying at heights of about 2,000ft, it said. The code also says that drones carrying cameras must stay at least 50m away from people, vehicles and structures and must not approach a large group of people closer than 150m. It urged owners to exercise common sense when flying their craft and to avoid the congested airspace around airports. "Drone operators need to put safety at the forefront of their minds when flying though, and ensure there is no conflict with commercial manned traffic," said Stephen Landells from the British Airline Pilots Association. |
News about the mid-air encounter comes only days after a Lufthansa jet nearly collided with a drone on the approach to Warsaw's international airport. http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/2014117.pdf |
Drone seized in Poland after near-collision with plane
|
This came across my desk today courtesy of Mobile Europe (hope the picture is a fake)
Sony Mobile takes to the skies in drone initiative with ZMP Extract of the article is: Sony Mobile has jointly founded its own drone company, which will offer enterprise solutions using unmanned aircraft. The smartphone company has formed Aerosense with Japanese robotics company ZMP, with the business set to be incorporated next month. Sony said Aerosense would use image capture and cloud-based data processing to deliver the likes of measurement, surveying and inspection services. Sony will provide its camera, sensing, telecoms and robotics technology for the new company. Google and Facebook are among the other companies testing drones, with both looking to use them to bring wireless connectivity to areas that do not have it. In March, Google's product chief Sundar Pichai said its drone program could be extended to Europe, with remote connectivity bolstered by its Project Loon initiative, which uses hot air balloons. Operators have been using drones for network maintenance, with du in the Middle East recently teaming up with Nokia Networks to examine the health of its infrastructure. Meanwhile, Cosmote in Greece has also used drones for network inspection, with it teaming up with Ericsson for the project. |
NASA-sponsored conference next week
“We think the airspace side of this picture is really not a place where any one entity or any one organization can think of taking charge,” Dave Vos, who heads Google’s secretive Project Wing, told Bloomberg News in his most expansive comments on Google’s vision to date. “The idea being that it’s not ‘Google is going to go out and build a solution and everyone else has to subscribe to it.’ The idea really is anyone should be free to build a solution.” At least 14 companies, including Google, Amazon, Verizon and Harris, have signed agreements with NASA to help devise the first air-traffic system to coordinate small, low-altitude drones, which the agency calls the Unmanned Aerial System Traffic Management. More than 100 other companies and universities have also expressed interest in the project, which will be needed before commercial drones can fly long distances to deliver goods, inspect power lines and survey crops. ... The goal is to eventually create a fully automated robotic ballet in the sky, with computers instructing drones to move around obstructions and each other. |
A solution to the "drone problem?"
2-m wedge-tailed eagle takes down drone. Watch it pPunch it out of the sky - Australia eagle is fine):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr-xBtVU4lg |
Mid-air between drone and light aircraft in Norway
So, its happened here... Albeit a happy outcome it does hint at things to come - this happened at 2000 feet with an unknown, so far unidentified drone.
The article is in norwegian, but the gist of it is that the collision happened in the southern parts of Norway this week to a foreign single-engine airplane receiving the hit with the landing gear. Fortunately no real damage done, but there is a lot of focus being drawn towards the problem of course - and I would guess that there is a pretty active investigation running! Luftfartstilsynet frykter alvorlige ulykker - Luftfart - VG So far 18 reports on accidents have been registered this year here, and around 20.000 drones are probably sold. Today I will be sending my own operation manual for review, its taken half a year - and there are still some aspects of operating the drone I am using that I will have to make sure will not be a problem. But climbing to 2000 feet? No way, never! |
Plane hits drone.
Plane fine. Can we all chill now a little? |
Chill
"Can we all chill now a little?"
Let's chill until we have a black smoking hole. |
Having been intensely irritated by a drone hovering over an outdoor performance of Shakespeare's Macbeth last summer, I'm with the chimp:
Chimp That Took Down Drone Showed 'Forward Planning': Researchers - NBC News |
Ok, lets think about this rationally.
I think most of us would agree that the greatest threat from small drones is to small single engine puddle-jumpers? Airliners have multiple engines, and as with birds, it usually needs a flock to bring one down. Examples. Man 1 has a bit of spare cash. Man 1 buys Cessna 152. Man 1 has great fun flying around. Man 1 obeys all the rules and flies responsibly, yet unavoidably, the very act of him flying around imposes a small extra risk on those whom he flies above, and history shows that every now and then puddle-jumpers take down an airliner..... Man 2 has a bit of spare cash. Man 2 buys quadcopter. Man 2 has great fun flying it around. Man 2 obeys all the rules and flies responsibly, yet unavoidably, the very act of him flying around imposes a small extra risk on those who fly around him. He is vanishingly unlikely to take down an airliner, but he might take down a puddle-jumper. Which should be banned? One, both or none? |
Man 3 has a bit of spare cash.
Man 3 buys quadcopter. Man 3 has great fun flying it around. Man 3 doesn't know, or care, there are any rules he has to follow and happily flies it on the approach path to a range of airports he may or may not know exist. There are many more of Man 3 than the other two types put together. |
I fully accept that Man 3 is probably prevalent, but that does not detract from my point.
If we should ban drones because they are a threat to aircraft, then should we also ban little puddle-jumpers? If not, why not? In both cases, the majority are flown purely for entertainment, and both potentially pose a risk to other, larger, aircraft. So far, there is no evidence that drones have caused more deaths than puddle-jumpers, in fact the only collision between a toy drone and a manned aircraft I have heard of so far caused no damage whatsoever. Manned toys can't say the same....... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_182 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_C...-air_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedmo...ines_Flight_22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegh...nes_Flight_853 |
Google translation of the Norwegian story at #332
(usual caveat – machine translation) |
Drones
It was reported in sport news that a small drone had crashed at the US Open tennis. Fotunately noone hurt.
Here we go. |
Tourist, the greatest threat from small drones is the irritating noise nuisance to people on the surface who just want a quite life.
The concept of ATC for Google and Amazon drones is laughable. There is no requirement whatsoever for either of these organisations to operate drones. As Jack11111 points out, a "black smoking hole" is the last thing anyone wants to see. |
There is no requirement whatsoever for either of these organisations to operate drones. |
Drone delivery.
Ok, just a few operational questions.
What is the MTOW of a drone delivering a 1kg package? A 2kg package? A 5kg package? Can a drone deliver only to a secure site with the recipient present? Or will the drone hide your package as the UPS driver does? How will the drone deal with a curious neighbor? A curious neighbor child? A pet dog? When the drone is ready to depart, does it yell, "Clear!"? Will non-aviation types even understand what "Clear" means? If the drone malfunctions, will it radio for help? Are drones VFR Only or are they all-weather? Just some operational questions. |
From Avweb
The FAA has reported that an “unknown object” struck a Piper Apache while in flight near Romeoville, Illinois, but according to the drone website suasnews.com, that object was likely a small drone. Citing an “unconfirmed report,” suasnews states that a Piper PA-23 twin impacted the drone at about 2,500 feet near Lewis University Airport (KLOT) in Illinois on Aug. 27. Photos of damage on the aircraft appear to show a series of vertical indentations and a slice into the rubber de-ice boot along the leading edge of the tail surface. The airplane landed safely and nobody was hurt. If we should ban drones because they are a threat to aircraft, then should we also ban little puddle-jumpers? |
|
I think most of us would agree that the greatest threat from small drones is to small single engine puddle-jumpers? Helicopters fly at low altitudes away from airports or established air routes. A drone hit to the main or anti-torque rotors could end in disaster. |
Peekay
Yes, I was talking fixed wing on this thread, but I agree. Not convinced that a main rotor would die from a small toy drone. Tail, maybe. No matter how many drones get bought by idiots, birds will always be a greater threat. If we are so worried by drones, then why are we not equally worried by birds? Toy drones are generally getting lighter as the tech advances. Delivery drones are different, but they are also going to be regulated and operating with somebody responsible who knows he goes to jail if he causes a problem. Megan Much like a bird strike, really. Puddle jumper pilots are supposed to have a handle, but despite this keep killing airliners. The fact that they have a license is irrelevant to the dead people. Where is the worry and outrage about those smoking holes? |
If we are so worried by drones, then why are we not equally worried by birds? Similarly even a small drone could be a hazard to light helicopters like the Robinson R22. The biggest threat with drones is the human operator: - Drunk people who think "it's funny" to harass helicopters with their drones, and might even try to purposely hit one - People who for some reason think they "must" fly their drones over an active accident site while an Air Ambulance is trying to land or take-off - Kids who think it's cool to fly drones right over airports and even along the active runway - Folks who want to "compete" with police & news helicopters over a crime scene, so they can post a footage to their friends on Facebook that night Through August 20th the FAA has logged over 750 drone "events" this year alone. |
Mechta,
Google and Amazon seem to be getting on splendidly without SUAV's. ATC are often stretched (by staff numbers, driven by cost), to provide ATSOCAS to manned aircraft. |
Peekay
Do you honestly think that the number of drones will ever be more than negligible compared to the birds that we fly amongst every day? Seagulls love to fly around the disk of a hovering helicopter. At least the pilot of the drone knows it will die and he will be out of pocket if he gets too close. Birds, not so much... Birds are constantly doing the things which you are worried about. They fly over airports. They come to look at helicopters. Airliners are specifically designed to take bird strikes. Baby quadcopters seem very similar to me. Zooker Do you honestly believe that normal human ATC will have any role when it comes to Amazon etc delivering parcels? Why would a quad ever fly above 200ft? Why should Amazon give a sh1t if ATC are stretched? ATCs job is to provide a service to everyone who needs it, not decide who has a valid reason. Amazon has a far more valid reason, (ie business) than some PPL playing for personal entertainment. |
SUAVs will not be a lot of use for delivering parcels if they can't fly over congested areas.
There is someone who posts pictures on the internet taken with a DJI quadcopter. It has been flown within 20' of the top of Blackpool Tower, which is 518' agl. There are other photographs from the same individual taken at about 2,500' above the town centre. These are the sort of idiots we're dealing with. |
Two separate things.
Idiots with toy UAVs These have been around as radio controlled aircraft for ever. Yes there are now more of them, but most of them are over cities where aircraft should not be at low level. Very very few idiots will have them at height. those that do, I refer you back to where I pointed out they are just like birds. Lots of them around but we seem to get by. Amazon drones flying automated routes in automated drones. This is new. There is no benefit in making these things fly high, plus the CEO of Amazon will be acutely aware of the potential lawsuit scale if they screw up. I suspect they will be absolutely bulletproof before they ever take to the skies operationally. |
Lots of them around but we seem to get by |
Yup, birds cause damage.
Been there, done that. Toys will cause damage. Not had that yet. How many aircraft have been brought down by a single bird in the last decade worldwide? How many birds are there? Just because something will inevitably cause accidents is not an excuse to ban it. If we went down that route all PPL pilots would be grounded. All motorbikes. All radio controlled aircraft. Boomerangs. Frisbees. Cricket balls. the list is endless The only thing to do is assess the realistic risk. The simple fact is that despite vast numbers of these things having been bought in the last couple of years and lot of general worrying, the worst anyone can come up with is one collision with a Cessna, no damage and a dent in a de-icing boot. |
"Amazon drones flying automated routes in automated routes"
What happens when a 'powerplant' fails? Below 200', super. More noise pollution. Also if these things are that low, 'scallys' will be shooting them down and making off with the booty contained therein. It's madness. |
ZOOKER
They have 4 power plants, minimum. That means redundancy. If you live somewhere that "scallys" shoot things down, then drones are the least of your problem. |
Thankfully not, Tourist, but I don't see the point of creating new problems when there's enough cr@p out there already.
|
Possible solution;
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:53. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.