UK: Drone 'deliberately' flown at airliner
- Thread starter Redwood
- Start date
- Status
This sentence says it all:
Balpa, which will give evidence before a House of Lords committee tomorrow, wants drones - officially known as Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) - which share airspace with passenger and freight airliners, to meet the same safety standards as piloted aircraft.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3HHLIv94p
SUAVs do not share airspace with commercial aircraft, as they are not permitted to fly above 400' or 1000' or within a prohibited area. If this was the case and this SUAV was being flown at 1500' on an airfield approach, the quad pilot was breaking the law.
I am not convinced about this "encounter" A turboprop entering the glide slope will be doing at least 100 knots, so assuming the drone was flying parallel with the airliner and was travelling flat out at 40 knots or so, the time they would have been close to each other would have been very short, hence the "D" rating of the Airprox.
I am sure the model flying associations will have something to say about more regulation of the hobby, but I think there is a case for mandatory registration and as part of this, you receive detailed information regarding legal use of the aircraft. The hobby is just running too far ahead of legislation at the moment.
Balpa, which will give evidence before a House of Lords committee tomorrow, wants drones - officially known as Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) - which share airspace with passenger and freight airliners, to meet the same safety standards as piloted aircraft.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3HHLIv94p
SUAVs do not share airspace with commercial aircraft, as they are not permitted to fly above 400' or 1000' or within a prohibited area. If this was the case and this SUAV was being flown at 1500' on an airfield approach, the quad pilot was breaking the law.
I am not convinced about this "encounter" A turboprop entering the glide slope will be doing at least 100 knots, so assuming the drone was flying parallel with the airliner and was travelling flat out at 40 knots or so, the time they would have been close to each other would have been very short, hence the "D" rating of the Airprox.
I am sure the model flying associations will have something to say about more regulation of the hobby, but I think there is a case for mandatory registration and as part of this, you receive detailed information regarding legal use of the aircraft. The hobby is just running too far ahead of legislation at the moment.
The speed differential makes it hard to believe anyone seriously attempted to 'fly at the plane'.
They always illustrate with a phantom but there is mention of it being black and red?
A phantom sized quad would be remarkably hard to see as they flew by presumably well over 200mph.
Story has all the hallmarks of another largely fabricated tale marked "drone hysteria"
They always illustrate with a phantom but there is mention of it being black and red?
A phantom sized quad would be remarkably hard to see as they flew by presumably well over 200mph.
Story has all the hallmarks of another largely fabricated tale marked "drone hysteria"
I don't agree, 4wd.
Nothing about the story seems implausible to me. I don't think it would be too difficult to move a Phantom into the landing path of an oncoming plane. As a passenger who enjoys window seats on my flights, it's not unusual to see Phantom-sized, real birds in the air while I'm looking out the window during landing.
Nothing about the story seems implausible to me. I don't think it would be too difficult to move a Phantom into the landing path of an oncoming plane. As a passenger who enjoys window seats on my flights, it's not unusual to see Phantom-sized, real birds in the air while I'm looking out the window during landing.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 1
Happened in May? ~4 to 5 months ago? Seems like a "timed" story.
Nonetheless, there are already laws that prohibit this type of flying near approach paths and airports. They need to find the boob that did it and throw the book at him. We don't outlaw the whole **** hobby. It would be like outlawing all driving because some drunk crashed into someone/something traveling the wrong way on the wrong side of the road. Prosecute the individual, not the entire industry and its customers.
Would the supposed date of this event be before they instituted the controlled airspace function in DJI firmware?
Nonetheless, there are already laws that prohibit this type of flying near approach paths and airports. They need to find the boob that did it and throw the book at him. We don't outlaw the whole **** hobby. It would be like outlawing all driving because some drunk crashed into someone/something traveling the wrong way on the wrong side of the road. Prosecute the individual, not the entire industry and its customers.
Would the supposed date of this event be before they instituted the controlled airspace function in DJI firmware?
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
4wd is exactly right. The approach speed for that type of plane is 110 knots or more. Any quadcopter we know of will do maybe 25 knots flat out. Even flying exactly the same heading, the closure rate would be over 100MPH. It would be a blur whizzing past the window and it would come and go in a fraction of a second.
isky172 said:
It's a bit different with cars though as you need a driving license, insurance, registration, MOT and road tax. Also, cars, travelling in 2D on roads are much easier to police and track.
I think it's sadly inevitable that eventually there will be an outright ban on hobbyists operating these aircraft at all or if we're 'lucky' some kind of draconian regulation prohibiting their use on anything other than private property at least a mile from anyone.
- Status
