Actually, we both want the same thing, I think. It's just that you want government to enforce more rules and regulations, and I prefer to let the market sort it out. That's why I agree with holding the individual responsible for negligent and reckless flying by making them pay. It will be a deterrent to those thinking of doing such stupid things.
Thanks to the moron who just flew his drone near LaGuardia airport
- Thread starter Turdle
- Start date
So you think making individuals pay for negligent and reckless flying will be a deterrent. Didn't they say the same **** thing about the death penalty yet we still have murders being committed 24/7. It's time you burst your bubble face reality.
Arct1c0n, if an airliner has to dodge a drone on approach, should the "drive by media" not report it?
Not with the the angle of creating "OMGZ, DRONES killsz people's and sues all owners of them" attitude, no.
I'm a bit incredulous that a drone can be irresponsibly flown at 2700 feet, into the path of an airliner on approach, causing a disruption of the landing process, and you take this as an opportunity to lay some blame on the media.
I've yet to see a report that appears as shrill as you imply. If you have a link, that would be helpful.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2014
- Messages
- 701
- Reaction score
- 23
FWIW, I agree the quad pilot has no sense of what could happen.
But come on, what damage can a little toy do to a huge aircraft a hundred times bigger?
It'd be about the same as a bug hitting the plane.
how often do birds hit planes?
IMO, the pilot of the commercial aircraft had some **** good eyes to see the quad soon enough to avoid it.
Also, being at 2700 feet, that would be pushing the limit unless he's using a range extender.
But come on, what damage can a little toy do to a huge aircraft a hundred times bigger?
It'd be about the same as a bug hitting the plane.
how often do birds hit planes?
IMO, the pilot of the commercial aircraft had some **** good eyes to see the quad soon enough to avoid it.
Also, being at 2700 feet, that would be pushing the limit unless he's using a range extender.
Ok I do think some of these pilots make things up if they had such a Hawk eye they wouldn't hit all these birds . I not saying they are all false allegations .
Now let me ask you this if YOU where on a plane and some moron was flying in the path of the plane your in would you want to hit it and see what happens ??
We do not know what was being flown they just use a phantom for their pics some of these "Drones" are really big .
Their is a a lot of hate from pilots just look for the vid of the news copter chasing down a RC pilot and all the smack they talk the guy seen the chopper and dropped down out of the way but the helicopter pilot went out of his way to chase it
I've never seen such a frightening or bombastic news report? Have
Your assuming that all drones are small hobby drones like the Phantom. We criticize the media for using the Phantom as the standard, yet we do the same.
I have buddies who have some pretty large and heavy custom hex or octocopters that could be quite damaging to an airliner.
Steve Mann inadvertently posted a video last week showing what a 24 lb balsa wood RC plane would do to biplane on collision.
The truth is none of us actually know what the results would be, but I find it more sane and responsible to err on the side of caution. I find it irresponsible to promote the theory that a quad is no more harmful to a plane than a bug on its windscreen. We simply don't know.
+1
Whenever an incident like this happens, some of the same old arguments regurgitate.
- A drone might take out an aircraft engine, but it wouldn't bring the plane down. - Yes, because landings after losing an engine aren't dangerous? It's not acceptable to take out an aircraft engine just because you think the plane can probably still land.
- Modern turbofans can ingest frozen turkeys, therefore a Phantom will go through a jet engine like confetti. - First of all, the frozen turkey/chicken story is an urban myth. Secondly, I prefer to hear scientific test-data to back up this claim. If GE, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls Royce etc, state it's ok for drones to go through their compressors, then I'll believe it. Until then, let's assume it's dangerous.
- Even if drones aren't harmful to planes' engines, it's not ok to distract pilots by flying drones in front of them. That squirrel running across the road might not damage your car, but you swerving to avoid it might kill yourself and your passengers.
- Pilots are lying. They couldn't spot a drone while landing a plane. - This has been covered in other threads. Commercial pilots, who also happen to be Phantom enthusiasts, have stated they're able to see birds smaller than drones while landing planes. Accept it. Or don't accept it, but that raises this question: if pilots are not able to spot drones, how many more incidents are not getting reported?
- A Phantom was/wasn't involved in the incident. - This is irrelevant. If a 3DR Iris causes a Cessna to crash, the resulting repercussions will be no different than if it was a Phantom or a Walkera and a Boeing 737. It's like: I'm going to continue to point lasers at airplanes because those incidents in NY were with green lasers and I only use red ones.
Some of you people are dangerous.
I guess there are 2 points that mark the difference between what R/C flyers did historically, and what is happening with the drone market now, that means drones are getting more bad press. Firstly, as has already been stated, flying a R/C plane or helicopter in the past required some skill, a lack of which usually ended up with a plastic bag full of bits. To avoid this pitfall, many entrants to the R/C hobby would seek out a flying club or similar, where they could learn to fly and where they would also learn about safe flying practices. With the advent of GPS equipped quads which can practically fly themselves, Uncle Tom Cobley and his dog are now getting in on the act without going down the 'join a flying club to learn to fly' route.
The second point is that a lot of quads these days are equipped with camera equipment, which may be the reason why some are being flown in places where perhaps they shouldn't, just to get that Oscar winning shot.
The second point is that a lot of quads these days are equipped with camera equipment, which may be the reason why some are being flown in places where perhaps they shouldn't, just to get that Oscar winning shot.
Look at it this way. If they want to ban drones, they will get someone to fly it near an airport (so to say), then the media will come in with terrifying scenarios so that the public will be "educated". Obviously they will use an image of a non US product to not damage any local interest. So now they have the pretext and most people will believe these media fairy tales. Look for example the alleged suicide pilot who killed 170 people. Do you believe that? Has anyone noticed the lack of aerial images of the scene. If a private person could have flown a drone over the area the evidence would have shown some different scenario.
How could a Phantom (or any DJI) pilot get anywhere near an airport? I thought that GPS telemetry build into the unit created no fly zones, where the unit would simply refuse to stay in the air?
Sounds like it might be our buddy who posted in a thread a few weeks back about how he thought it was cool to fly his drone at 3500 feet in the new York area.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2015
- Messages
- 735
- Reaction score
- 295
I have a theory...maybe the pilot lied. Some of you will remember a few months back, a police helicopter "almost ran into a drone" but when the transcript was revealed, it turned out they followed the quad. My theory is that SOME of the reports are just because the pilots are afraid of being replaced. And for good reason:
And that video was 5 YEARS ago.
And that video was 5 YEARS ago.
Similar threads
