1st Aircraft Drone Strike in Canada?

[jwmcgrath]

I don't know that contact is required. It could be as simple as notifying the aircraft which can likely out fly any drone given sufficient warning. Alternatively, a reverse ping from the aircraft could freeze the drone for 10-15 seconds to allow the aircraft more time to react.

To me, the issue (long term) isn't how to accommodate civil aviation. There are just over half a million civil licensed pilots flying roughly half that many planes. It won't be long until the number of drones and drone pilots massively dwarf either of those numbers, if they don't already. Going forward, once businesses figure out how to incorporate drones and get the necessary approvals, it is civil pilots and craft that will be expected to bend over backwards to accommodate UAS vehicles. Outrageous? One sector will drive or be closely related to a large percent of GDP. The other, a hobby for a few rich guys.

I truly appreciate any interesting and unique suggestions, because sometime, somewhere, someone is going to come up with something that will work, or be the basis of a greater plan.

I don’t think you’re at all wrong that the drone industry has the potential to dwarf civil aviation, but more than that... even if those in power refuse to accept that they will have to accommodate hobby craft, the emerging technology of airborne personal transport craft WILL have its day to be respected as well.

 

[Erised]

I couldn’t possibly agree more regarding the “assumption perspective”, and I’m generally VERY sceptical of any/all reports regarding sightings, so I hope this isn’t one of the ones that sucked even me into believing.

I also know that the transport minister has proven to be an alarmist given his comments issued with his interim orders earlier this summer, including banning flying near “birds, animals, etc”...

So I hope your indication proves correct, and I hope the outcome of any investigation proves to be as public as this initial accusation.

I feel the same in the assumption aspect of the whole story, It is definitely possible but in almost 1600 reports TC has only investigated 131+- , so are the other ones just not worth checking out or does TC believe they are not drone related. With no proof of a hit (close up pictures of the damage would be nice) they are pretty presumptuous in stating it was a drone hit.

 

[FlashBuddy]

Consider the source.

 

[Meta4]

More than 24 hours later, there's still no additional information - just echoes of the original press release.
Aren't there any journalists left in Canada to ask questions and look for facts?

 

[Erised]

Facts! It's the same for most journalist all over the world, if they can get a statement that will make the headlines that's all they need, follow up's and proof don't make headlines and they don't care. They really seem to care and dig if they can dirty up a politician tough.

 

[jwmcgrath]

More than 24 hours later, there's still no additional information - just echoes of the original press release.
Aren't there any journalists left in Canada to ask questions and look for facts?

Sad, isn't it. It's made the local newscasts too... same comments, same quotes... not a single thing new. It's starting to smell...

 

[jwmcgrath]

I feel the same in the assumption aspect of the whole story, It is definitely possible but in almost 1600 reports TC has only investigated 131+- , so are the other ones just not worth checking out or does TC believe they are not drone related. With no proof of a hit (close up pictures of the damage would be nice) they are pretty presumptuous in stating it was a drone hit.

It infuriates me. If this ends up being the same as the rest, you just know it's not going to get the same coverage or retraction.

 

[YogiFlyer]

I too have no issue with licensing and registration. And I too agree that it will not stop stupid from doing stupid and being stupid.

Yep...can't fix stupid...not even with duct tape!

 

[Kcgunesq]

Yep...can't fix stupid...not even with duct tape!

Sure you can. It just isn't legal in most countries north of the equator.

 

[Technical Bob]

If the media is to believed, and at this stage I am not convinced, we've just seen the second collision between a recreational drone and a manned aircraft in under a month. What does this mean to the hobby and why am I advocating for harsher enforcement of better regulations?
Here is a link to that edition of CAA NZ's Vector magazine: https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legacy...
Here is a link to the Reuters report of the (alleged) mid-air collision: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-can...

 

[bkushner]

So you want to be regulated MORE because an idiot was at 2000 feet and hit a plane?

 

[UpLift Aerial]

Its people like this that's going to DESTROY the hobby for everyone.

And transport Canada Is enforcing new laws next year. The hobby gets more and more strict each year!

 

[UpLift Aerial]

They say "its difficult to track down the operator". Aren't they able to get information about the craft through radar or something and go from there? Use that info to track the craft, witch will lead the the operator?
(2:26)

 

[jwmcgrath]

They say "its difficult to track down the operator". Aren't they able to get information about the craft through radar or something and go from there? Use that info to track the craft, witch will lead the the operator?
(2:26)

Again though, even with this beautifully crafted video and pretty colour graphic, where the drone has now SLAMMED into the plane, there is ZERO new information beyond the original release... just repeat and reruns of the same info clips.

We still don’t have any new evidence.

 

[FlashBuddy]

So you want to be regulated MORE because an idiot was at 2000 feet and hit a plane?

"Suspected". No evidence has been brought to light. I'm beginning to think that those who's first reaction to perceived potential issues is to legislate, may be genetically embued to that point of view. The legislate first and look at the facts later types are here to stay and no amount of discussion is going to change that. The key is to provide a balancing point of view and live in a democratic society

Remember "yellow yournalism"? The drone "slammed" into the plane. It didn't hit, collide, or brush against. The latter would not garner enough revenue producing attention.

I'm amazed at the keen eyesight of those pilots reporting near drone encounters. Heck, most of us know how hard it can be to re-acquire a visual of our birds once we glance away, even when in relatively close proximity. It comes as no surprise that when UFO'S were all the rage, pilot sightings were also at an all time high. So too with drones I thing.

I'm not saying it's a lie, but I do have a respectable amount of caution in regards to forming a conclusion. I feel forming more regulation should also come with a respectable amount of caution.

Next time you land your drone, ask yourself if it landed, touched down or slammed into the ground.

 

[Meta4]

They say "its difficult to track down the operator". Aren't they able to get information about the craft through radar or something and go from there? Use that info to track the craft, witch will lead the the operator?
(2:26)

No, because drones don't show up on airport radar and even if they did, they aren't going to show when they are down under 100 feet as they would be lost in the ground clutter.
Airport radar isn't made to track small objects close by.

 

[jwmcgrath]

This is definitely a first for Canada though... in more ways that one.

First time they’ve conclusively reported an aircraft/drone strike.

First time the Transport Minister has accepted and supported that conclusion as fact.

 

[UpLift Aerial]

No, because drones don't show up on airport radar and even if they did, they aren't going to show when they are down under 100 feet as they would be lost in the ground clutter.
Airport radar isn't made to track small objects close by.

No I mean like the FAA, they have info about all the drones, who owns them and location etc. At least that's what I thought. I could be wrong.

 

[anotherlab]

They say "its difficult to track down the operator". Aren't they able to get information about the craft through radar or something and go from there? Use that info to track the craft, witch will lead the the operator?

As mentioned by others, civil aviation radar doesn't track small objects and the drones are not broadcasting their location. Unless you see the operator with the craft, it's extremely difficult to locate the operator. I'm not familiar with CAA rules, but the FAA no longer requires hobbyist drones to be registered. It could also be a home made drone and not have any information on the craft that could lead back to the owner or operator.

 

[UpLift Aerial]

As mentioned by others, civil aviation radar doesn't track small objects and the drones are not broadcasting their location. Unless you see the operator with the craft, it's extremely difficult to locate the operator. I'm not familiar with CAA rules, but the FAA no longer requires hobbyist drones to be registered. It could also be a home made drone and not have any information on the craft that could lead back to the owner or operator.

Yea I know now. Thanks.