Getting caught cheating isn’t good for ANYONE.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/drone-hits-commercial-aircraft-in-quebec-garneau-1.3633035
http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/drone-hits-commercial-aircraft-in-quebec-garneau-1.3633035
1st Aircraft Drone Strike in Canada?
- Thread starter jwmcgrath
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
- Messages
- 3,591
- Reaction score
- 1,540
- Age
- 43
Really appreciate it tho when he said "most of the drone pilots are aware of the rules and stick with them" (or something like that) bet the guy who caused that is crapping it on here now.
I hoping he IS sweating bullets or better, comes forward. We have legislation pending (after a summer of flying under interim orders), we have a petition that was just forwarded (mostly because our rules or considerably more strict than ANYWHERE), and then this clown comes along.
I think that Mr. Garneau's interview was good as he stated that we share the air space with other air crafts. He did not seem against drones but that we need better control because of the idiots who screw it up for the pilots that are aware of their surroundings. I feel that we are a bit overboard with many of the new regulations but then I can understand that he does not want to have a serious incident. Registration and licensing won't stop the dorkos but will improve aviation safety. When the automobile came out no one needed a permit and after many incidents a law was made to ensure good driving practices where followed. I think we are headed in the same direction with our drones. I think another regulation Mr. Garneau should have is that if you screw up like this guy did, other good pilots would have the right to slap them in the head and ask them "What's wrong with you?"
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,303
- Reaction score
- 9,247
Very little information in any report for this one.
It was at either 1500 ft or 2400 ft and no report has any info explaining how they know it was a drone or the nature of the minor damage sustained.
Beechcraft A100 King Air C-GJBV Incident, 12 Oct 2017
SkyJet flight #SJ512 was struck by a drone, first time a commercial aircraft was hit by a drone in Canada - RadarBox24.com News
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. What it will do is make enforcement more straightforward and with any luck, discourage SOME of those who would do stupid from doing it, and maybe weed them out.
Right now, there is very little pressure to prevent anyone from flying recklessly other than application of vague interim orders. But by who?
Now, combine the expense of the initial purchase, along with the responsibility of registration and licensing, and a clear set of reasonable regulations, and we may finally have some structure that makes enough sense to not only be enforceable but simple to sensibly follow.
Right now, there is very little pressure to prevent anyone from flying recklessly other than application of vague interim orders. But by who?
Now, combine the expense of the initial purchase, along with the responsibility of registration and licensing, and a clear set of reasonable regulations, and we may finally have some structure that makes enough sense to not only be enforceable but simple to sensibly follow.
Agreed that there are as many vagaries in this and any story that usually accompany all the “unconfirmed” drone reports, sightings and strikes, but there does seem to be a certain amount of credibility considering comments and written reports were issued by the Transport Minister, and that it was reported by an “as reputable as we have” national news agency in CTV.
Regrettably, the bottom line usually becomes that to the general public and majority of the uninformed... it probably happened.
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,303
- Reaction score
- 9,247
All the reports (and I looked at many) quote the same release from the transport minister.
I found one report gave a different altitude but none giving any additional details.
None give any info at all about the nature of the damage or any indication of why it was claimed that whatever the plane hit was a drone.
Planes hit things all the time, usually birds, sometimes bats and very rarely, drones.
This might have been a drone ... but it would be good to have some actual info to show we aren't just taking the word of someone that thinks it might have been a drone.
It's very sloppy journalism to give the story without any actual information.
Here's a thread about the outcome of an investigation into a widely reported incident where the pilot believed he'd hit a drone in Australia.
Possible Drone Strike - investigation outcome
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.
Watching the Transport Minister’s Twitter feed. No update since this post.
Note: his statement as shown above in the articles was made 3 hours prior to this tweet.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2016
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 46
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
- Messages
- 3,591
- Reaction score
- 1,540
- Age
- 43
It won't be long now till its mandatory for all planes to have a camera at on the nose of the plane and the tail of the plane to record footage. It would make sense to be honest as they can recheck the footage and work out what it was
I doubt it would help much. If you have a dash cam, you know that it can be very difficult to make out details of anything more than a few feet away, especially if you aren't moving in the same direction.
Long term, I think it is probably a better solution to require drones to use a transponder system for all flights above a certain height and to require all aircraft to have the ability to detect the signal.
Interesting concept and one that I don’t recall having been mentioned yet, but even that might not be effective.
Once detected, there’d need to be an efficient way to contact the drone operator and that’s just not feasible. A lot of us fly with cell service off to avoid interference, and realistically, anyone within danger of a low flying aircraft (take-off, landing) probably shouldn’t be there and if they are, they are likely doing so intentionally and without regard for the rules. There’s no stopping that.
Funny how the reporting has gone dark. It’s not like our Transport Minister to stay quiet on something like this... he just loves being vocal about the “drones keeping him awake” at night.
Equally funny that this is the first time they’ve reported it as a drone, rather than “suspected” or “alleged”...
...currently, under an interim order. More formal legislation is expected to pass next year.
Doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense that we are restricted to 100’ lower than the US.
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.
Similar threads
