What has not been clearly stated, at least that I have seen, is whether the pilots saw the object and identified it as a drone, or whether they inferred a drone impact from the sound of the impact.
Was it a drone? British airways flight
- Thread starter NorthcountySD
- Start date
What has not been clearly stated, at least that I have seen, is whether the pilots saw the object and identified it as a drone, or whether they inferred a drone impact from the sound of the impact.
If somebody sneaks a knife or a gun into the airport, they don't talk about banning all knives and guns everywhere.
If some old guy gets lost and drives his car onto an active runway, they don't talk about banning all cars because of the dangers they can pose to landing aircraft....
In both of the above cases, the fault is clearly attributed to the idiot driving or the jackass that intentionally tried to smuggle a weapon through airport security....
But if a drone is spotted anywhere near an airport - why is it the drone itself that is evil and must be banned and not just the idiot flying it?
If some old guy gets lost and drives his car onto an active runway, they don't talk about banning all cars because of the dangers they can pose to landing aircraft....
In both of the above cases, the fault is clearly attributed to the idiot driving or the jackass that intentionally tried to smuggle a weapon through airport security....
But if a drone is spotted anywhere near an airport - why is it the drone itself that is evil and must be banned and not just the idiot flying it?
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 720
- Reaction score
- 259
- Age
- 61
Just as others have commented on there being no damage to the aircraft and then it is cleared to continue to fly, fishy fishy. It was probably a balloon or something similar.
- Joined
- May 10, 2014
- Messages
- 3,012
- Reaction score
- 522
Trouble is the media whip up the peasant masses and the ill informed start making stupid comments.
Just need to look at the readers comments in the British press.
If we start banning everything that is harmful nothing would be allowed.
Just need to look at the readers comments in the British press.
If we start banning everything that is harmful nothing would be allowed.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2016
- Messages
- 558
- Reaction score
- 114
- Age
- 55
I gather it's the open source drones that are the problem? True false?
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2016
- Messages
- 1,626
- Reaction score
- 418
- Age
- 49
No gonna about it.
You heard it here first from me. Expect the FAA within the next year or two to enact a law that will require UAS operators who fly UASs' that fall into the non "toy" category to need a true Civil Aviation Authority pilot's license. Now don't get totally worried. You won't need the license where you can get in a plane and fly it. The level that it will require is a bunch of written tests (harder than getting a technical for a HAM for example but not the worst in the world). Basically it will teach UAS operators how to use the proper terminologies, how to look at flight plans, how to get the info that you need to fly an aircraft.
Frankly, as much as a pain as this is, I don't totally hate it. I don't love the idea of millions of people that HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE DOING flying UASs everywhere. And if they are, they should know how to do it safely.
I don't think anyone can honestly say that these things aren't true mini-aircrafts.
The media and aviation do not mix. Captain Bang Ding Ow was at it again!
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
With huge respect to this community, aren't we missing the point? Drones are capable of flying into planes, helicopters and pretty much anything elso on this planet. It doesn't much matter whether this was through accident, inexperience or malice, it can, will and does happen. Some of the most respected members of this site appear to put themselves in situations where they have no idea where their drone is in relation to other traffic on a daily basis. It makes for great reading and I'm generally hooked on these exciting adventures.However, these are people with considerable flying and technical skills. There are many others with no real skills doing the same things without due diligence. This being the case, the only real solution is to make the drone the intelligent party - no disrespect intended - where this overrides any command that puts it or others in potential jeopardy. Some of this already exists - geo fencing for example - but some, such as max flight distance and altitude, can be easily overridden. I realise that for many this would negate buying a drone but for others, it could mean a safer industry and even a relaxation of rules.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Kant was right. Overarching things like more/better education, laws, etc. do little within a free society with free choice. Only morality and the correct internal compass guide folk toward proper behavioral choices.
Choice is freedom, however choice doesn't constitute or define freedom.
Freedom is the proof, the presence of morality making the correct "good" choices. After all laws aren't passed to help steer the good, moral people's actions.
Just observe the empirical evidence of that here in these posts.
Many fly, be damned the rules. They have the freedom to choose/make bad choices and the will/desire to do so regardless.
That's where we get into the mistake that personal wants desires and personal freedoms seem to "trump" Constitutional freedoms.
However that mind set is wrong as personal freedom stops where other's freedom begins(constitutionally protected)
To fly in the fashion and location described and discussed in this thread is truly an indication that MORE education, MORE training, MORE laws, etc aren't the answer.
MORE morality is.
Choice is freedom, however choice doesn't constitute or define freedom.
Freedom is the proof, the presence of morality making the correct "good" choices. After all laws aren't passed to help steer the good, moral people's actions.
Just observe the empirical evidence of that here in these posts.
Many fly, be damned the rules. They have the freedom to choose/make bad choices and the will/desire to do so regardless.
That's where we get into the mistake that personal wants desires and personal freedoms seem to "trump" Constitutional freedoms.
However that mind set is wrong as personal freedom stops where other's freedom begins(constitutionally protected)
To fly in the fashion and location described and discussed in this thread is truly an indication that MORE education, MORE training, MORE laws, etc aren't the answer.
MORE morality is.
The media can and does pervert news stories to suit their own agendas. This particular incident could just as easily have been written with the headline "Drones don't pose any danger to aircraft after all..." and the article could go on to highlight that a plane which had experienced a mid-air collision with a drone had been examined by professional mechanics who could find no damage whatsoever and cleared the aircraft for flight immediately. That kind of article would be equally disturbing because a drone glancing off the body of an aircraft does far less damage than one being sucked into a turbofan would. But the media in this case should have focused more on the individual piloting the drone and his failings and irresponsibility instead of stirring up negative public opinion about drones themselves. And they should have made it clear that the existing regulations already forbid this kind of flight so stricter regulations are not an answer however better enforcement of the existing regulations might be. Our Phantoms already have built-in NFZ's that prevent us from accidentally wandering into restricted space. Perhaps devices with that kind of geofencing safeguard should be treated differently than those that don't. Same with the other safeguards - such as return to home on lost connection or low battery. Drones that do not have these safeguards obviously pose a higher risk than those that do - yet we're all lumped into the same category and the regulations are written to protect against the low-end drones bit applied to all drones. I'd personally like to see some extra leniency given to owners of more expensive drones with advanced safety technologies. I realize the kind of nightmare that this might cause when it comes to enforcement - but that's probably the worst argument ever for not recognizing the different capabilities and risk profiles of different products. Pilots too vary in competency. If attending a certification course was going to relax the restrictions re: where and when I could fly - I'd sign up in a heartbeat. But the proposed regulations don't seem to differentiate between first-time fliers and those that hold actual pilots licenses or anything in between.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2016
- Messages
- 297
- Reaction score
- 88
- Age
- 70
Your suggested headline would be another mis-characterization. A multirotor CAN in fact pose a risk to aircraft, in this case we just don't know if it was a UAV that struck the plane.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
When comes to agendas and biases... some members here could teach the 'media' a thing or two.
I saw on Fox news today that a retired FAA official is suggesting that ALL UAV be banded until they can figure out a way to make them safe. I will say it again, we need to get out ahead of this before it is too late. I don't like the direction this is going. Wake up people.
You missed the point - and my message clearly states that this type of headline would be equally disturbing and calls out that a drone glancing off the body of an aircraft is much different than one being sucked through the Turbofan.. It's definitely not a suggested headline. It's an example of how the media can and does distort reality.
Did you read more than the first three lines of my post before you felt compelled to reply?
I think we all may be over reacting. Give it a week and some other rubbishy story will take over. Go and fly, enjoy the flight and come home and charge your batts and go again. Unless you are the type of person inclined to fly in a NFZ, you have nothing to worry about.
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app
Slow news week?
Today a DJ on Sirius/XM was yacking about drones becoming dangerous and the companies wanting to bring them into the mainstream getting hurt when they are banned. Expecting this to be about DJI, 3DR, GoPro, etc., she then names Amazon, Google, etc.!
The local news tonight had an interview with a park ranger warning that wildfires are going to be more dangerous this year when they have to suspend air operations because a drone is spotted in the area.
Today a DJ on Sirius/XM was yacking about drones becoming dangerous and the companies wanting to bring them into the mainstream getting hurt when they are banned. Expecting this to be about DJI, 3DR, GoPro, etc., she then names Amazon, Google, etc.!
The local news tonight had an interview with a park ranger warning that wildfires are going to be more dangerous this year when they have to suspend air operations because a drone is spotted in the area.
Similar threads
