BBC reporting a drone has hit an airliner at Heathrow
Discussion
It's been confirmed that it wasn't a drone after all and according to the news report on bbc radio 5 it was probably a plastic bag.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36159117
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36159117
Edited by BlackLabel on Thursday 28th April 12:09
hidetheelephants said:
It's just a reiteration of the previous report; they aren't saying it's a poly bag or a drone, they don't know what it was. UFO! 
Exactly. It even says there's no evidence it WASN'T a drone in the article
"Air accident investigators said they had not ruled out a drone but had no evidence to support the suggestion."
The transport minister hasn't got a clue what it was. Two blokes said they saw a drone why then say it was a plastic bag?
BlackLabel said:
It's been confirmed that it wasn't a drone after all and according to the news report on bbc radio 5 it was probably a plastic bag.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36159117
That's not at all what the article says. Have you even read it? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36159117
Edited by BlackLabel on Thursday 28th April 12:09
markmullen said:
The recent firmware for DJI units, the most common, won't allow you to fly within so many miles of an airport, since the controls rely heavily on GPS it can't have been difficult to implement.
Looking at the area around Newquay where the DJI no-fly zone is active, it would not have included the area that the drone was seen.Slightly off topic but what's people's opinion on this:
My neighbour has recently got one of these drones and he's been messing about with it, usually lateish in the evening when everything has quietened down.
First off it's pretty loud, like a Flymo, so that annoys. He mainly keeps it within his boundary, but it goes up high and it's obvious he's looking over people's gardens and having a nose. Which is an invasion of privacy.
I thought there were rules on this stuff, around people's property etc.
The blokes a bit of a nob as well, which explains much of it.
So what are the more informed people's opinion?
My neighbour has recently got one of these drones and he's been messing about with it, usually lateish in the evening when everything has quietened down.
First off it's pretty loud, like a Flymo, so that annoys. He mainly keeps it within his boundary, but it goes up high and it's obvious he's looking over people's gardens and having a nose. Which is an invasion of privacy.
I thought there were rules on this stuff, around people's property etc.
The blokes a bit of a nob as well, which explains much of it.
So what are the more informed people's opinion?
Uncle John said:
Slightly off topic but what's people's opinion on this:
My neighbour has recently got one of these drones and he's been messing about with it, usually lateish in the evening when everything has quietened down.
First off it's pretty loud, like a Flymo, so that annoys. He mainly keeps it within his boundary, but it goes up high and it's obvious he's looking over people's gardens and having a nose. Which is an invasion of privacy.
I thought there were rules on this stuff, around people's property etc.
The blokes a bit of a nob as well, which explains much of it.
So what are the more informed people's opinion?
If it's got a camera, and he's not got his CAA certificate, it should not be flown in built up areas. My neighbour has recently got one of these drones and he's been messing about with it, usually lateish in the evening when everything has quietened down.
First off it's pretty loud, like a Flymo, so that annoys. He mainly keeps it within his boundary, but it goes up high and it's obvious he's looking over people's gardens and having a nose. Which is an invasion of privacy.
I thought there were rules on this stuff, around people's property etc.
The blokes a bit of a nob as well, which explains much of it.
So what are the more informed people's opinion?
A lot of people do not follow the rules.
Uncle John said:
Slightly off topic but what's people's opinion on this:
My neighbour has recently got one of these drones and he's been messing about with it, usually lateish in the evening when everything has quietened down.
First off it's pretty loud, like a Flymo, so that annoys. He mainly keeps it within his boundary, but it goes up high and it's obvious he's looking over people's gardens and having a nose. Which is an invasion of privacy.
I thought there were rules on this stuff, around people's property etc.
The blokes a bit of a nob as well, which explains much of it.
So what are the more informed people's opinion?
The lenses are so wide angle the chances of nosing about with one are about zero.My neighbour has recently got one of these drones and he's been messing about with it, usually lateish in the evening when everything has quietened down.
First off it's pretty loud, like a Flymo, so that annoys. He mainly keeps it within his boundary, but it goes up high and it's obvious he's looking over people's gardens and having a nose. Which is an invasion of privacy.
I thought there were rules on this stuff, around people's property etc.
The blokes a bit of a nob as well, which explains much of it.
So what are the more informed people's opinion?
Eric Mc said:
It was Flybe aircraft - probably a Dash 8 - so a slower turboprop.
Aside from the cruise, a Q400 is not that noticeably slower than jet traffic. They are able to slow down more easily so can maintain a high approach speed until quite late. Don't confuse them with something like an ATR, which in my experience seems to be able to either go forwards at 170 knots, or climb at 700 feet per minute, but not both.The BBC story on this tells of a "near miss" where there was "no danger of collision". Yay for journalism.
Prawo Jazdy said:
Aside from the cruise, a Q400 is not that noticeably slower than jet traffic. They are able to slow down more easily so can maintain a high approach speed until quite late. Don't confuse them with something like an ATR, which in my experience seems to be able to either go forwards at 170 knots, or climb at 700 feet per minute, but not both.
The BBC story on this tells of a "near miss" where there was "no danger of collision". Yay for journalism.
I think it's a non-story and can't tell which day of the week it happened.The BBC story on this tells of a "near miss" where there was "no danger of collision". Yay for journalism.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff