Was it a drone? British airways flight

[Tenly]

Interesting analysis from Mercatus, but it is entirely predicated on the the assumption that drones and birds represent equivalent threats on impact - in other words it is only mass that matters. That seems to indicate that they are lacking in certain scientific disciplines on their team, supported by the fact that the article in question was authored by an economics student and a Research Fellow in the Technology Policy Program at George Mason.

Well, everything else may be debatable - but what is crystal clear from this article is that the sooner we have a fatal incident - the sooner we can look forward to 187 Million drone years of safety!!!

. j/k

 

[GadgetGuy]

Well, everything else may be debatable - but what is crystal clear from this article is that the sooner we have a fatal incident - the sooner we can look forward to 187 Million drone years of safety!!!

. j/k

I love using their own risk statistics to prove greater safety after an incident has already happened!

 

[Tenly]

Are you saying that ALL airports should be NFZs?


One thing that is not constant however is the engineering controls built in to the drones. As the large drone (I'm excluding tiny toy drones like the Hubsan X4) population increases, the proportion that are newer models with altitude limits and such increases rapidly. Also, the people that engage in risky flying probably have a significantly higher loss rate than responsible flyers (ask an insurance agent). The expense of something like a Phantom 3/4 means they probably give up on the "hobby". This turnover of machines has never been quantified (then again nothing regarding drones has really been quantified or studied, just guessed about) but surely that also has an impact on the flying population. This doesn't accord with increasing pilot "reports," a majority (yes, a majority, which greatly surpises me since drones are inherently low altitude machines) of which on the FAA's last compilation are above 2000 ft. All this and without a single validated collision, which as years go by without a collision, our understanding of the probabilities has to change as well.

That's a very good point. Sar104 states that probability of a collision is increasing because of the influx of new drone pilots - but I think that we've probably already passed the peak probability and that it is in fact decreasing now - for some of the reasons you state. More and more drones being sold now have built-in safeties and no fly zones. This makes it much more difficult to accidentally wander into or take off within restricted air space. Also - I think there is a flawed supposition that all of the existing sightings were cowboy pilots deliberately ignoring the rules.

Certainly some of the incidents would have been cowboys - but I suspect that the majority of the incidents were caused by pilots who didn't know they were doing anything wrong or didn't realize they were in restricted air space! If that is true, then this type of ignorant pilot should also be on the decline. The regulations are still fairly new. The longer they are in place and the more public awareness there is about the regulations, NFZ's, etc - and about the dangers a drone collision *could* cause to a passenger aircraft - the fewer ignorant pilots we will see who simply didn't know better.

So - with new pilots being better informed about the rules and regulations - and with the newer generation of drones simply refusing to enter restricted airspace - I think the risk of a collision is decreasing every day! Even the Cowboys who intentionally ignore the rules will probably avoid airports because they know they will be ostracized by the community for posting any footage taken in the vicinity of one.

 

[sar104]

That's a very good point. Sar104 states that probability of a collision is increasing because of the influx of new drone pilots - but I think that we've probably already passed the peak probability and that it is in fact decreasing now - for some of the reasons you state. More and more drones being sold now have built-in safeties and no fly zones. This makes it much more difficult to accidentally wander into or take off within restricted air space. Also - I think there is a flawed supposition that all of the existing sightings were cowboy pilots deliberately ignoring the rules.

Certainly some of the incidents would have been cowboys - but I suspect that the majority of the incidents were caused by pilots who didn't know they were doing anything wrong or didn't realize they were in restricted air space! If that is true, then this type of ignorant pilot should also be on the decline. The regulations are still fairly new. The longer they are in place and the more public awareness there is about the regulations, NFZ's, etc - and about the dangers a drone collision *could* cause to a passenger aircraft - the fewer ignorant pilots we will see who simply didn't know better.

So - with new pilots being better informed about the rules and regulations - and with the newer generation of drones simply refusing to enter restricted airspace - I think the risk of a collision is decreasing every day! Even the Cowboys who intentionally ignore the rules will probably avoid airports because they know they will be ostracized by the community for posting any footage taken in the vicinity of one.

I agree that the Implementation of NFZs must be helping to reduce flights into restricted airspace, but don't forget that only the major airports are currently protected. That still buys something though, since those have, historically, been where the near miss reports and concerns have been concentrated.

But as mentioned previously, most airports are not protected, and the current structure of DJI NFZs is rather a blunt instrument in that the 5 mile exclusion zone would define many perfectly safe locations as NFZs. I'm comfortably within 5 miles of an airport, but in a location that is not available to any aircraft for approach or departure. Unfortunately, I imagine that a sufficiently comprehensive database to protect all significant airport approach and departure routes would be a huge undertaking to construct. Perhaps they could partner with one of the aviation app companies, such as ForeFlight, to get access to their flight planning database.

 

[Tenly]

I agree that the Implementation of NFZs must be helping to reduce flights into restricted airspace, but don't forget that only the major airports are currently protected. That still buys something though, since those have, historically, been where the near miss reports and concerns have been concentrated.

But as mentioned previously, most airports are not protected, and the current structure of DJI NFZs is rather a blunt instrument in that the 5 mile exclusion zone would define many perfectly safe locations as NFZs. I'm comfortably within 5 miles of an airport, but in a location that is not available to any aircraft for approach or departure. Unfortunately, I imagine that a sufficiently comprehensive database to protect all significant airport approach and departure routes would be a huge undertaking to construct. Perhaps they could partner with one of the aviation app companies, such as ForeFlight, to get access to their flight planning database.

Yeah - it's completely ridiculous that we can't shoot a real estate video at 75 feet altitude anywhere within 5 miles of a major airport without applying for a special permit - and even if we got the permit - we can't do it with a Phantom!

 

[GadgetGuy]

I agree that the Implementation of NFZs must be helping to reduce flights into restricted airspace, but don't forget that only the major airports are currently protected. That still buys something though, since those have, historically, been where the near miss reports and concerns have been concentrated.

The reason near-miss reports have been "concentrated" around major airports is because the opportunity for a misidentification is increased with more air traffic, and not because there are more drones flying over them. Assuming that NFZ's must be helping, doesn't make it so. The real rogue drone flyers who are deliberately flying over airports are not deterred by NFZ's. Circular NFZ's also make no sense when the air traffic flies in specifically oriented parallel runway paths, instead every radius from the center of the airport.

 

[wawakool]

"It was a plastic bag!"
(...said in the same whiny tone of Ross, telling Rachel, "We were on a break!")

lol

 

[sar104]

The reason near-miss reports have been "concentrated" around major airports is because the opportunity for a misidentification is increased with more air traffic, and not because there are more drones flying over them. Assuming that NFZ's must be helping, doesn't make it so. The real rogue drone flyers who are deliberately flying over airports are not deterred by NFZ's. Circular NFZ's also make no sense when the air traffic flies in specifically oriented parallel runway paths, instead every radius from the center of the airport.

I would actually expect that there are less drones flying over the major airports because of the firmware restrictions, which rules out the recent models of the most popular drones, and I'm sure that you are correct that it is increased air traffic leading to more reports, whether real or mistaken.

I entirely agree on the circular NFZs, as I mentioned previously.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I would actually expect that there are less drones flying over the major airports because of the firmware restrictions, which rules out the recent models of the most popular drones, and I'm sure that you are correct that it is increased air traffic leading to more reports, whether real or mistaken.

I entirely agree on the circular NFZs, as I mentioned previously.

The increasing publicity over the idiocy of flying over an airport has also been a factor. So, as you state, we should logically have declining actual intrusions, and yet the "sightings" are increasing. Airline pilot misidentification is the most likely culprit.
"Eek! What was that?!"
"Must have been a drone!"
"Write it up!"

 

[Tenly]

I was watching NBC via Comcast tonight and there was an instant when the signal went out briefly.

Its obvious to me, the signal interruption was caused by an irresponsible pilot flying his Phantom into the Comcast satellite. I'm not sure how he circumvented the 500m altitude restriction - but I'm 99% certain it was a drone collision!

Birds don't go near satellites because to a bird, the satellites look like giant cats (they mistake the various antenna arrays for whiskers) and everyone knows that plastic bags disintegrate upon entering the stratosphere - nor can a plastic bag interfere with a TV channel higher than #49 due to the respective wavelengths of the lower channel numbers and common plastic. (It's simple physics people!)
.
This is the fifth time this week that I've personally thought that a drone has collided with a communications satellite which proves that this might happen a lot more than I sometimes think it does!

The frequency of my thoughts about these satellite/drone collisions makes it clear that we require more regulations for drone operators - specifically rules prohibiting UAV's from flying anywhere within 500m of communications satellites and 1 mile from GPS satellites.

Imagine if it had been a GPS satellite! The collision could have caused bad GPS data to be sent to all of us - making us all late for dinner because bad GPS directions sent us to the wrong restaurants!

Satellites only have very basic collision avoidance systems and can't be expected to maneuver out of the way every time some irresponsible pilot sends a UAV towards them. Help protect our hobby! The next time you see a pilot flying towards a satellite - tell him to be extra careful - especially if it happens to be in the middle of Game of Thrones!

 

[GadgetGuy]

I was watching NBC via Comcast tonight and there was an instant when the signal went out briefly.

Its obvious to me, the signal interruption was caused by an irresponsible pilot flying his Phantom into the Comcast satellite. I'm not sure how he circumvented the 500m altitude restriction - but I'm 99% certain it was a drone collision!

Birds don't go near satellites because to a bird, the satellites look like giant cats (they mistake the various antenna arrays for whiskers) and everyone knows that plastic bags disintegrate upon entering the stratosphere - nor can a plastic bag interfere with a TV channel higher than #49 due to the respective wavelengths of the lower channel numbers and common plastic. (It's simple physics people!)
.
This is the fifth time this week that I've personally thought that a drone has collided with a communications satellite which proves that this might happen a lot more than I sometimes think it does!

The frequency of my thoughts about these satellite/drone collisions makes it clear that we require more regulations for drone operators - specifically rules prohibiting UAV's from flying anywhere within 500m of communications satellites and 1 mile from GPS satellites.

Imagine if it had been a GPS satellite! The collision could have caused bad GPS data to be sent to all of us - making us all late for dinner because bad GPS directions sent us to the wrong restaurants!

Satellites only have very basic collision avoidance systems and can't be expected to maneuver out of the way every time some irresponsible pilot sends a UAV towards them. Help protect our hobby! The next time you see a pilot flying towards a satellite - tell him to be extra careful - especially if it happens to be in the middle of Game of Thrones!

That's what I'm talking about!
Everyone send a copy to your congressman!
More regulations are always the answer,
even if the assumptions upon which the regulations are based are completely false, and the regulations do nothing other than make the legislators feel better, because they have now done something!

 

[Dinerve]

I think that all runway approach and departure routes should be NFZs - it is overkill to surround all airports with 5 mile exclusion zones. Finals, base on short final, and climb out are the risky areas. Upwind and downwind legs should be safe if we assume reasonable altitude restrictions.

[...]

I don't necessarily agree. I am relatively new to the hobby (particularly with more capable drones). My house is exactly at the border of a 5km radius from a small airfield, not even used commercially. I get a warning when taking off to fly with caution.

The other day a Cessna flew past my house and was clearly below 200m, perhaps above the 120m limit but not by much. But I could not judge by eyesight.

I won't be flying above 60m in my area, and bring the bird down at the sound of an aircraft engine...doesn't need to be an NFZ. I may be cautious but that other pilot might not as I don't know what his regulations are in terms of altitude where I am located but like all crashes one is responsible and I don't want to be the one as my expensive drone isn't worth the slightest compared to any risk any manned aircraft could face.

And a lot of people are waiting around the corner for this to happen for various reasons...Have a look at the below if you haven't, it's very interesting and and worrying..

http://www.phantompilots.com/index....nge-limit-if-EASA-pass-these-new-RULES.91542/


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[Hotwire]

No that is all wrong. Regulation makes money and employs thousands or maybe millions. The number of regulations are proportional to the likely amount of money participants will/can pay. If safety was governments primary concern, there would be no wars and soldiers would be issued Nerf guns.
I live near a major air field and so do thousands of sea birds, including pelicans. Australian pelicans are big, about +20Kg and an F111 was brought down by one in 1977. No one sad a word about culling pelicans because that is tabou. With a 20minute flight time the chances of striking a multirotor UAV are slim.
When the amount of money to be collected is ascertained, the publicity and regulation growth will stop.

By the way; most reports about the Evans Head crash are wrong. The pelican went through the windshield and killed the co-pilot and the navigator. The pilot ejected the pod, so I was told, and survived. RIP

 

[PTCX]

No that is all wrong. Regulation makes money and employs thousands or maybe millions. The number of regulations are proportional to the likely amount of money participants will/can pay. If safety was governments primary concern, there would be no wars and soldiers would be issued Nerf guns.
I live near a major air field and so do thousands of sea birds, including pelicans. Australian pelicans are big, about +20Kg and an F111 was brought down by one in 1977. No one sad a word about culling pelicans because that is tabou. With a 20minute flight time the chances of striking a multirotor UAV are slim.
When the amount of money to be collected is ascertained, the publicity and regulation growth will stop.

By the way; most reports about the Evans Head crash are wrong. The pelican went through the windshield and killed the co-pilot and the navigator. The pilot ejected the pod, so I was told, and survived. RIP

Although the birdstrike was the initial cause of the incident it was not the suspected pelicans (3) that killed the pilot and co-pilot but the fact that the crew module was ejected outside the safe envelope to do so,they were moving too fast & low,and the impact with the ground was too hard for the module to protect the crew from the impact.
ASN Aircraft accident 29-SEP-1977 General Dynamics F-111C A8-133
Air Force News :: Top Stories

 

[Hotwire]

My knowledge of the incident was from persons who attended the accident, but my memory is not perfect and it was long ago. I understand the F111 was practicing low level bombing and there was limited time to respond. The aircraft would have been able to fly with one engine if that was the only issue. Evans Head has few elevated terrain obstacles, so terrain was not a concern. Also, the pod was launched by one of the pilots, sadly too low.

Some news paper articles didn't report a crash but a minor incident, which was what I was referring to.

As for birds verses drones, fear off collision with a pelican is rarely mentioned. Interactions with adventurous Phantom operators, is almost constant. Many incidents reported by the media in Australia are not illegal but some crank complaining or a pilot flying out of their legal air space. I observe sight-seeing aircraft flying below 400ft regularly but no complains from the cranks.

For years I have experienced hanglider pilots complaining about my foamies, while they are ones operating illegally. Dog walkers at the local oval who think its a dog walker priority area. Finally news reporters who will do a story on the dangers of UAVs and then their next report will include an aerial shot from a news photographer with a drone or worse a chopper.

Finally unsanctioned air shows by rescue choppers in local parks. This would to my understanding require a NOTAM but I think this is more cowboy authority.

I support information not regulation. Free charts for those who don't understand how the sky is organised. Its contradictory to say you want safe operators and then charge for the information to be so. sell models with a pre-flight check list or include it in their Tx.

As for being hit by a Phantom or a pelican, Phantom please.

 

[PTCX]

As for birds verses drones, fear off collision with a pelican is rarely mentioned. Interactions with adventurous Phantom operators, is almost constant. Many incidents reported by the media in Australia are not illegal but some crank complaining or a pilot flying out of their legal air space. I observe sight-seeing aircraft flying below 400ft regularly but no complains from the cranks.

For years I have experienced hanglider pilots complaining about my foamies, while they are ones operating illegally. Dog walkers at the local oval who think its a dog walker priority area. Finally news reporters who will do a story on the dangers of UAVs and then their next report will include an aerial shot from a news photographer with a drone or worse a chopper.

Finally unsanctioned air shows by rescue choppers in local parks. This would to my understanding require a NOTAM but I think this is more cowboy authority.

I support information not regulation. Free charts for those who don't understand how the sky is organised. Its contradictory to say you want safe operators and then charge for the information to be so. sell models with a pre-flight check list or include it in their Tx.

As for being hit by a Phantom or a pelican, Phantom please.

Ive read a couple of stories involving pelicans and F111's at Evans Head bombing range,they prompted upgrades to the F111's but still did a lot of damage.
Ditto with sight seeing planes,Ive seen a few doing some pretty stupid things at very low altitudes.Ive seen one so low it made sand flags on 4x4's bend over as the plane flew by and that was directly over about 60+ people.
I've seen the local rescue helicopter showboating over 2000+ people at a rally in a local park,next door to their base but Ive seen them coming and going plenty of times and only saw them flying 50 feet over the park that once.They are pretty quick to call the media when they have had encounters with drones because it is dangerous but it's OK to show off to a crowd,I'd expect better from those guys.
As for the rest of your post if you chance dog walkers to bird watchers and it sounds like you have been following me around trying to fly in the same place and time.

 

[Hotwire]

More people on the ground have died at air shows than will ever be killed by camera drones or FPV enthusiasts. Demonized for things that haven't happened.

I plan to FPV my combat gliders this summer to improve this relaxing pastime but you can bet all the cranks will be at us again. Even though no one has ever been hurt or even scratched. I get threatened every other time I go flying. Our gliders are all EPP and softer than a Nerf ball, but that's not deterring the cranks. I have been doing this for 15 years and have friends who hanglide, so it's not fleeting experience.
The number of times I get told "I'll have that band" is crazy, and it was for a while. The signs rusted away in the salt air and were never replaced.

I have an issue with over regulation, its true. If you're a participant in anything new, especially technology based, you get attitude. Put on boxing gloves and bash the life out of some one, its beyond criticism.