BBC reporting a drone has hit an airliner at Heathrow

BBC reporting a drone has hit an airliner at Heathrow

Author
Discussion

zeroo

7 posts

95 months

Monday 18th April 2016
quotequote all
scubadude said:
ukaskew said:
Our friends in Oxford have this to say...

A remote-controlled pilotless aircraft or missile

I think it sums up the things we're talking about quite well.
I think its pretty much globally accepted that the people in Oxford have a bee up their arses when it comes to definition, therefore they are IMO wrong.
No problem, get yourself a doctorate, write a new dictionary, get it published, globally accepted, and we'll all start using your definitions. Till then a drone is still a A remote-controlled pilotless aircraft or missile i'm afraid.

mebe

292 posts

142 months

Monday 18th April 2016
quotequote all
Boatbuoy said:
J4CKO said:
I am joking, playing devils advocate, but who actually owns the sky ?
National Air Traffic Service (NATS), for the UK atleast.
Only up to a certain height? or have I got that wrong?

Dr Doofenshmirtz

15,184 posts

199 months

Tuesday 19th April 2016
quotequote all
Would hitting a drone be any worse than hitting a bird?

I mean a consumer grade drone like a Phantom...not the mega expensive large ones often used for TV filming...they can be pretty big and heavy.

MartG

20,619 posts

203 months

Tuesday 19th April 2016
quotequote all
scubadude said:
Secondly- the Dick-wads flying these things into planes and crowds are going to get them regulated or banned and ruin the fun that millions of people world-wide enjoy safely with these remote control toys.


Any time anyone invents something fun, some jerk has to misuse/abuse it and spoil the thing for everyone else- selfish mouth breathing knuckle dragging Neanderthal scum.
This

People have been flying radio controlled models for many years without causing this sort of problem, because they abide by the various regulations governing where and when they can fly. Unfortunately drones have become easily available to people who either don't know or don't care that regulations exist regarding flying radio controlled aircraft near controlled airspace.

Hopefully there will be no knee-jerk laws passed which will ruin the hobby for responsible owners, just better enforcement of the existing regulations

longshot

3,286 posts

197 months

Tuesday 19th April 2016
quotequote all
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
Would hitting a drone be any worse than hitting a bird?

I mean a consumer grade drone like a Phantom...not the mega expensive large ones often used for TV filming...they can be pretty big and heavy.
Birds, mainly consist of soft stuff and hollow bones so quite easily break down when ingested.
Drones are made of more substantial materials.

Also, airports go to great lengths to keep birds away. Drones ignore the deterrents.

miniman

24,824 posts

261 months

Tuesday 19th April 2016
quotequote all
MartG said:
This

People have been flying radio controlled models for many years without causing this sort of problem, because they abide by the various regulations governing where and when they can fly. Unfortunately drones have become easily available to people who either don't know or don't care that regulations exist regarding flying radio controlled aircraft near controlled airspace.

Hopefully there will be no knee-jerk laws passed which will ruin the hobby for responsible owners, just better enforcement of the existing regulations
I'd say the fact that until the last few years flying radio controlled stuff has required skill and practice is a big part of it.

StephenP

1,886 posts

209 months

Wednesday 20th April 2016
quotequote all
miniman said:
MartG said:
This

People have been flying radio controlled models for many years without causing this sort of problem, because they abide by the various regulations governing where and when they can fly. Unfortunately drones have become easily available to people who either don't know or don't care that regulations exist regarding flying radio controlled aircraft near controlled airspace.

Hopefully there will be no knee-jerk laws passed which will ruin the hobby for responsible owners, just better enforcement of the existing regulations
I'd say the fact that until the last few years flying radio controlled stuff has required skill and practice is a big part of it.
That is, IMHO, the real issue. With many of these drones being self-stabilising with complex flight controllers, even the most talentless can get them to fly without endless crashes.

It's taken them away from the hobbyist who learns their flying skills properly (such as at a club) and in to the hands of those who can buy one with no previous experience of R/C flying and be up in the air when they get home, without the faintest idea what they are doing or what rules apply (written or common sense!).

Shame really for those responsible and sensible owners who will lose out because of the total f***wits ....

chris7676

2,685 posts

219 months

Wednesday 20th April 2016
quotequote all
I think this is potentially more serious and will become more so with time.

What means are there (at least in the UK) to protect an aircraft / public area from a malicious drone attack?
Police with guns? Military? RAF?


MarkwG

4,809 posts

188 months

Wednesday 20th April 2016
quotequote all
mebe said:
Boatbuoy said:
J4CKO said:
I am joking, playing devils advocate, but who actually owns the sky ?
National Air Traffic Service (NATS), for the UK atleast.
Only up to a certain height? or have I got that wrong?
Not quite: no one "owns" the sky as such. The Civil Aviation Authority has the authority from Parliament under the Air Navigation Order to manage how UK airspace is categorised; that may involve NATS as the designated authority for some areas of controlled airspace, but not all. NATS has been active in endeavouring to manage the risk from drones, but, as with anything, it's reliant on a certain degree of user intelligence... http://nats.aero/blog/2014/11/guidance-safe-use-dr... .

shunt

968 posts

224 months

Wednesday 20th April 2016
quotequote all
StephenP said:
That is, IMHO, the real issue. With many of these drones being self-stabilising with complex flight controllers, even the most talentless can get them to fly without endless crashes.

It's taken them away from the hobbyist who learns their flying skills properly (such as at a club) and in to the hands of those who can buy one with no previous experience of R/C flying and be up in the air when they get home, without the faintest idea what they are doing or what rules apply (written or common sense!).

Shame really for those responsible and sensible owners who will lose out because of the total f***wits ....
I totally agree, I used to fly IC helis many years ago, the concentration required was huge, I struggled to speak while flying. I now have a Dji phantom which I think my dog could fly. No skill required whatsoever but the footage can be very impressive.

It rarely gets used apart from work as there is no fun in the actual flying.

The Moose

22,820 posts

208 months

Wednesday 20th April 2016
quotequote all
shunt said:
I totally agree, I used to fly IC helis many years ago, the concentration required was huge, I struggled to speak while flying. I now have a Dji phantom which I think my dog could fly. No skill required whatsoever but the footage can be very impressive.

It rarely gets used apart from work as there is no fun in the actual flying.
They're not remote controlled flying machines, they're cameras that happen to fly...if that makes sense!

hidetheelephants

23,731 posts

192 months

Thursday 21st April 2016
quotequote all
chris7676 said:
I think this is potentially more serious and will become more so with time.

What means are there (at least in the UK) to protect an aircraft / public area from a malicious drone attack?
Police with guns? Military? RAF?
Other than shooting at them with attendant risk of missing and danger of the fall of shot downrange IIRC there was a story about birds of prey being taught to take them down recently.

Boatbuoy

1,941 posts

161 months

Thursday 21st April 2016
quotequote all
hidetheelephants said:
chris7676 said:
I think this is potentially more serious and will become more so with time.

What means are there (at least in the UK) to protect an aircraft / public area from a malicious drone attack?
Police with guns? Military? RAF?
Other than shooting at them with attendant risk of missing and danger of the fall of shot downrange IIRC there was a story about birds of prey being taught to take them down recently.
Yes, the Dutch police have been training eagles to tackle some of the smaller examples. I understand the Metropolitan Police have expressed an interest in making use of this method. Of course it's only effective if the enforcement method is in the same location as the UAS.

Jonesy23

4,650 posts

135 months

Thursday 21st April 2016
quotequote all
So apparently this was actually a floating plastic bag, resulting in no damage. In a very polite way it's suggested that the crew may have overreacted to something they barely saw and jumped to conclusions.

Shocking really, I've never seen evidence of pilots having a massive overreaction to a threat that they've convinced themselves must exist...

The official position is that current regulations around drones are adequate and technical measures such as geofencing would be pointless as they could be circumvented by anyone who was a real threat.

RegMolehusband

3,958 posts

256 months

Thursday 21st April 2016
quotequote all
It's unfortunate that the BBC don't mention this today after making a big fuss of it a few days ago. So "drone hits passenger aircraft" is still lodged in people's minds. Drones = Bad.

hidetheelephants

23,731 posts

192 months

Thursday 21st April 2016
quotequote all
Jonesy23 said:
So apparently this was actually a floating plastic bag, resulting in no damage. In a very polite way it's suggested that the crew may have overreacted to something they barely saw and jumped to conclusions.

Shocking really, I've never seen evidence of pilots having a massive overreaction to a threat that they've convinced themselves must exist...

The official position is that current regulations around drones are adequate and technical measures such as geofencing would be pointless as they could be circumvented by anyone who was a real threat.
They don't know what it was and it's possible the AAIB may not discover definitively what it was, although given the video footage that always seems to materialise after events perhaps it will become clearer.

MartG

20,619 posts

203 months

Saturday 23rd April 2016
quotequote all
Article about it being a bag - I'll lay odds that all the newspapers which hyped up the 'drone danger' will not mention it

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016...

Note that the incident took place at 1,700ft ( and the BBC listed another incident at over 4,000ft ) - drones like the DJI Phantom have a default limit built in of 120m above where they took off so such incidents would require drones to have been modified to reach such high altitudes

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 23rd April 2016
quotequote all
RegMolehusband said:
It's unfortunate that the BBC don't mention this today after making a big fuss of it a few days ago. So "drone hits passenger aircraft" is still lodged in people's minds. Drones = Bad.
Because the transport minister said "it may have been a bag" in reality, he doesn't have a clue what it was. He wasn't there. Why not believe the two pilots that were there and thought they saw a drone? It would be easy for the pilots to identify if it was a drone or a bag.


anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 23rd April 2016
quotequote all
Jonesy23 said:
So apparently this was actually a floating plastic bag, resulting in no damage. In a very polite way it's suggested that the crew may have overreacted to something they barely saw and jumped to conclusions.
.
Where on earth did you get this information from?

Evanivitch

19,800 posts

121 months

Saturday 23rd April 2016
quotequote all
Agreed, the transport minister deserves a bit of a slap for that gaff. He could have atleast said it was a Chinese lantern.


There's geofencing and altitude limits on a lot of kit, but how much of that is a quick hack away from.being overcome? Is it firmware? Software? Can the GPS be disabled or spoofed?

The manufacturer should be commended for taking reasonable action but it isn't the end of the issue.