Drone strike.... It was bound to happen!

Locker10a

Drone strike on BA flight from GVA-LHR

http://news.sky.com/story/1680304/drone-strikes-plane-at-heathrow-airport

JCX BXC

Locker10a wrote: »

Drone strike on BA flight from GVA-LHR

http://news.sky.com/story/1680304/drone-strikes-plane-at-heathrow-airport

Just seen that!

Not a major incident thank god, hopefully some regulations will be put in place before something serious does happen.

Jamie2k9

Carnacalla wrote: »

Just seen that!

Not a major incident thank god, hopefully some regulations will be put in place before something serious does happen.

Very difficult for regulations to be effective.

Firefox11

Do drones have to be registered with the relevant aviation authorities in the UK as they have to be here now? (Over a certain weight)

Avatar MIA

Carnacalla wrote: »

Just seen that!

Not a major incident thank god, hopefully some regulations will be put in place before something serious does happen.

Hopefully an incident. Could easily see how these could be adapted for more nefarious purposes.

arubex

The problem with 'more regulations' is that people with the intent to do nefarious things will generally ignore the regulations, whilst those who just want to get on with their hobby are penalised.

The weather doesn't care much for regulations, so commercial air transport had to find ways to adapt. Similiarly they'll have to adapt to widespread use of drones, not just build virtual castles around airports and add more laws to the books to 'protect' themselves.

JCX BXC

arubex wrote: »

The weather doesn't care much for regulations, so commercial air transport had to find ways to adapt. Similiarly they'll have to adapt to widespread use of drones, not just build virtual castles around airports and add more laws to the books to 'protect' themselves.

Ehh, I don't really like this example. The weather can't be manoeuvred purposely in a malicious way.

fr336

Anything in the name of profit eh....fingers crossed ISIS and co forget about the existance of drones but I think it unlikely somehow. Such things shouldn't be in the hands of the great unwashed, there should be strict criteria for purchase.

artanevilla

One of these days one will go into an intake and cause thousands worth of damage. Who pays then?

Shannon757

Must have been fairly minor for the aircraft to return to service 2 hours later. I wonder why they were flying it near Heathrow?
Avherald report: http://avherald.com/h?article=4970605b&opt=0

JCX BXC

Shannon757 wrote: »

Must have been fairly minor for the aircraft to return to service 2 hours later. I wonder why they were flying it near Heathrow?
Avherald report: http://avherald.com/h?article=4970605b&opt=0

The aircraft was on final approach so it would have been fairly near Heathrow!

Irish Steve

The problem for the industry to grapple with is that for years, the approach paths to major airports have been fixed in stone in terms of the heights and locations that the aircraft operate at, and with the latest levels of computers that are now controlling the flight profile, the repeatability is scarily accurate, to within a matter of a few feet both horizontally and vertically. What's now causing much concern is that drones are effectively expendable price items, there are some on sale locally for under €60. and the technology to make it very easy to navigate them to a fixed point in space with the same accuracy as a commercial aircraft is also available for very cheap prices. It's then also incredibly easy to add FPV, (First person Video), so that the operator on the ground (sometimes a LONG way away from the actual device) can see a picture relayed from the device to the ground and move the device in order to achieve the result they want.

One solution is in some respect possibly counter intuitive, which is to degrade the accuracy of the profile that the automation flies the aircraft. Yes, they are supposed to cross the Final approach fix at altitude X, but if that altitude varies by plus or minus 100 Fr, it does not compromise the ability of the system to fly a stable approach, but it will for sure mess up the ability of the drone pilot to put his device in the expected path of an airliner.

In the same vein, ATC systems have for years been pulling aircraft down to 1500 Ft AGL for miles before the final approach fix, and dragging them in at that level for miles, which makes them a much easier target, as they are also then flying a very predictable horizontal profile,

A long time ago, Airways were 10 miles wide to make sure that an aircraft didn't stray out of controlled airspace, due to the accuracy of the devices in use at that time. Now, it's almost standard to have aircraft at the edges and in the middle of that space, because the modern equipment is so accurate, and we're now operating with reduced vertical separation at higher levels for the same reasons, the equipment is more accurate. I suspect that one of the solutions to the drone issue is to put some of the "fudge factor" back into the levels and routes in order to ensure that it's a lot harder for drones to be in the wrong place at the right moment.

Anyone that thinks there is a way to control this drone problem is living in cloud cuckoo land, there is no way to ban the production of a drone, unless you want to totally ban all radio controlled models of any sort, which is a massive intrusion into a long established and valid hobby that is not as such a risk, and even if that happens worldwide, which it won't, there will still be very easy ways to produce hardware that capable of controlling a drone from off the shelf modules that are used for other purposes. The number of frequencies that can be used to control them, or to relay FPV signals is also so large and wide that it's not practical or realistic to carry jamming equipment on board aircraft, and such a facility on the ground would have such a detrimental effect on other valid uses of the radio spectrum, it can't be done.

The potential for damage if a drone goes through an engine core is massive, and the density of some of the components is such that the whole "contained engine failure" certification scenario may have to be revisited, I'd be concerned that a drone has the potential to cause an uncontained engine failure in a way that a bird does not. A long time ago, it was a standing joke that one particular engine failed the test, until it was discovered that someone had forgotten to defrost the bird that was being used for the test. That's not quite so funny now when the potential for significant damage by a drone is considered.

There is no quick and easy fix to this issue, and it is, for all sorts of reasons, a major issue that will not go away. Large heavy drones were until recently not easy to obtain, they are now very easy and cheap, so the airline and aviation industry has no alternative other than to find ways to minimise the risk to the travelling public.

smurfjed

Look at London City where the approach gradient is close to 6 degrees rather than 3 degrees, the number of aircraft which can achieve this gradient is limited, so even if they adopted your idea of increasing the gradient for major airports, the amount of this increase would be very little.

As far as LHR is concerned, i believe that they are presently using a higher than standard gradient for noise abatement purposes.

kleefarr

This is going to give Daesh/ISIS ideas.

12Phase

Realistically they're going to have to have draconian and well advertised penalties for flying drones near airports etc.

You'll always get morons and those with twisted motives and the technology's generic and out there so putting the genie back into the bottle is basically not possible.

You could mandate a 'shutdown signal' that would cause drones to power down if flown into areas where it operates, but you couldn't ensure drones all had it.

Catching remote operators isn't easy either as the signals aren't all that simple to triangulate. That's why registration became mandatory.

Unfortunately what started out as a rather fun hobby is going to rapidly become a major annoyance and hazard.

billy few mates

A friend of mine has a DJI Phantom 4 drone with GPS/GLONASS which has built in no fly zones preventing him from flying it into a restricted area like an airport...

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-4/info#specs

http://wiki.dji.com/en/index.php/Phantom_3_Professional-_Flight_Limits_and_No-Fly_Zones

http://www.dji.com/flysafe/no-fly

12Phase

That's an improvement but, it'll be kind of hard to ensure that rogue operators and existing drones comply. They'll have to get strict on regulations and ban grey market imports to do that.

Realistically though getting global cooperation should be be easy as no state wants drones as an aviation hazard or snooping over nuclear power stations (as happened in France with alarming regularity for a number of years)

BoatMad

12Phase wrote: »

Realistically they're going to have to have draconian and well advertised penalties for flying drones near airports etc.

You'll always get morons and those with twisted motives and the technology's generic and out there so putting the genie back into the bottle is basically not possible.

You could mandate a 'shutdown signal' that would cause drones to power down if flown into areas where it operates, but you couldn't ensure drones all had it.

Catching remote operators isn't easy either as the signals aren't all that simple to triangulate. That's why registration became mandatory.

Unfortunately what started out as a rather fun hobby is going to rapidly become a major annoyance and hazard.

You can " mandate " anything you like , but that wont affect the 500 euro drone imported from China etc

There are already very significant penalties for endangering aircraft , including jail. Catching and identifying the perpetrator is however not easy.

The drone registration is useless, the vast majority of " toy " drones are not going to be registered anyway either wilfully or through ignorance

Its nothing to do with drones anyway, a RC model aircraft flown into the path of an aircraft is exactly the same thing


the reality is , that aircraft have to be designed to cope with such items as they become " normal" in our technology centric world . Thats the solution

squonk

Yup there are doubtless going ot be quit ea lot more 'responsible' and 'irresponsible' drones and operators around in future. For a lot of us I'd say with drones, and especially the expensive ones, we'd rather get our dron back home than risk it being damaged by aircraft or disgruntled individuals. Anyone flying a drone in the invirons of an airfield is an idiot. Pure and simple. In most cases with modern drones there are built in no-fly zones for sporting arenas, airports and other areas of public and safety interest. Any regulations or rules brought in will only affect the reputable hobbyists and not the guy who buys something very programmable which won't adhere to no0fly zones. It's sadly the case of a few bad apples spoiling things for everyone else.

12Phase

There are signal jamming devices being tested at some sensitive facilities that are basically pointed at the drone and block all of its control signals and GPS. In most cases that causes them to just land due to loss of communication rather than crash or go crazy.

The downside is that they also wipe out legitimate and useful communications and sat nav. You'd need special licencing for that kind of equipment and neighbouring data services and mobile phone services would likely be impacted.

Might be acceptable in maybe a remote max security prison, military installation or nuclear facility etc but not really at an urban airport.

The French use military grade anti-drone drones at nuclear facilities that aim to capture (with a mesh net) the offending drone or will destroy it if necessary.

They also were discussing deployment multiple signal location drones - a cluster of small drones that would just fly up high that aim to triangulate the source of the controller.

You could also deploy permanent drone listening stations at high sites around facilities like airports, nuclear power plant etc on near by hills (maybe even on existing TV, mobile phone, airport comms towers) and use them to record location of signals. That isn't actually very hard to do as all they need to be able to do is listen for the use of particular frequencies or combinations of frequencies and types of transmission, not actually decode the signals.

The knowledge that such facilities may exist might put people off.

You'd be assumed to be a terrorist for overflying a facility like that these days and would expect a visit from very serious police.

I think both engine design to cope with drones and also anti drone measures are needed though.

I would doubt that the comparison with birds is very useful. Birds are generally a lot squishier than a wire filled lump of plastic with lumps of metal inside (motors etc).

jmayo

fr336 wrote: »

Anything in the name of profit eh....fingers crossed ISIS and co forget about the existance of drones but I think it unlikely somehow. Such things shouldn't be in the hands of the great unwashed, there should be strict criteria for purchase.

And you reckon one of them hasn't thought about remote controlled aircraft before this ?

The whole make everyone register, throw the book at them brigade reminds me to a certain degree of the ban all legally held handguns and we will prevent gun crime in Ireland.

Yes have harsh penalties for any muppet or worse who is caught flying any remote controlled device near an airport/airfield.
Of course as others have said finding the people responsible may be difficult.

The thing that always happens is that genuine law abiding owners are the ones that suffer because of new laws/regulations that the muppets and criminals ignore anyway.

murphaph

BoatMad wrote: »

You can " mandate " anything you like , but that wont affect the 500 euro drone imported from China etc

There are already very significant penalties for endangering aircraft , including jail. Catching and identifying the perpetrator is however not easy.

The drone registration is useless, the vast majority of " toy " drones are not going to be registered anyway either wilfully or through ignorance

Its nothing to do with drones anyway, a RC model aircraft flown into the path of an aircraft is exactly the same thing


the reality is , that aircraft have to be designed to cope with such items as they become " normal" in our technology centric world . Thats the solution

Some things are not possible. It's like saying airliners should be able to cope with a bomb because explosives have been around for ages already. A heavy drone carrying a dense battery pack can't really be defended against IMO.

BoatMad

12Phase wrote: »

There are signal jamming devices being tested at some sensitive facilities that are basically pointed at the drone and block all of its control signals and GPS. In most cases that causes them to just land due to loss of communication rather than crash or go crazy.

The downside is that they also wipe out legitimate and useful communications and sat nav. You'd need special licencing for that kind of equipment and neighbouring data services and mobile phone services would likely be impacted.

Might be acceptable in maybe a remote max security prison, military installation or nuclear facility etc but not really at an urban airport.

The French use military grade anti-drone drones at nuclear facilities that aim to capture (with a mesh net) the offending drone or will destroy it if necessary.

They also were discussing deployment multiple signal location drones - a cluster of small drones that would just fly up high that aim to triangulate the source of the controller.

You could also deploy permanent drone listening stations at high sites around facilities like airports, nuclear power plant etc on near by hills (maybe even on existing TV, mobile phone, airport comms towers) and use them to record location of signals. That isn't actually very hard to do as all they need to be able to do is listen for the use of particular frequencies or combinations of frequencies and types of transmission, not actually decode the signals.

The knowledge that such facilities may exist might put people off.

You'd be assumed to be a terrorist for overflying a facility like that these days and would expect a visit from very serious police.

I think both engine design to cope with drones and also anti drone measures are needed though.

I would doubt that the comparison with birds is very useful. Birds are generally a lot squishier than a wire filled lump of plastic with lumps of metal inside (motors etc).

military technology to jam drone controls is not compatible with operation in a civilian areas , today no such technology in practice exists , that will not for example , also jam all local Wifi stations too.

triangulating 2.4Gz to a point that allows police interception , is a complex and technically cosily process and the confusion with ordinary 2.4Ghz wireless makes it very hard to actually accomplish outside the lab.

in most cases, drones may either descend rather quickly , fly in a haphazard manner or if they have a functioning GPS, return to a home location ( that may or may not be programmed correctly ) , you cant tell, so even if you take down all 2.4ghz in an area, you cant be sure of what will happen to the drone , you could precipitate the exact thing you are trying to prevent . Ive seen many forms of RC aircraft ( which includes drones) , fly away in a haphazard manner ( including one last week )

uniformed people suggesting technical solutions would so well to gen up on the technology first

12Phase

BoatMad wrote: »

military technology to jam drone controls is not compatible with operation in a civilian areas , today no such technology in practice exists , that will not for example , also jam all local Wifi stations too.

triangulating 2.4Gz to a point that allows police interception , is a complex and technically cosily process and the confusion with ordinary 2.4Ghz wireless makes it very hard to actually accomplish outside the lab.

Which is exactly what I said!

BoatMad wrote: »

uniformed people suggesting technical solutions would so well to gen up on the technology first

There's very serious research going on into how to combat risks around drones.
Some is applicable to commercial air fields, some isn't.

The focus in the French scenario has been to ensure they do not over fly nuclear power plants, which are usually located in fairly unpopulated areas (although not always).

The logic in France has been if they have to momentarily wipe out wifi for military reasons, in a fairly rural area, that's what will happen.

Also it's far from impossible to detect drone video link frequencies especially in non-built up areas.

Any of them using 5.8GHz (ISM band) will standout like a sore thumb, even in a built up area. WiFi is typically directed internally in a building at low power and is using the very well established 2.4GHz and 5.15–5.725GHz.

Drone operators are using 2.4GHz outdoors and with far higher output than your typical WiFi router or device. So, again even on those channels will stand out and can be identified quite quickly if you are serious about finding them.

Hunting them down is far from the impossibility that you're outlining.

BoatMad

how to combat risks around drones.
Some is applicable to commercial air fields, some isn't.

The focus in the French scenario has been to ensure they do not over fly nuclear power plants, which are usually located in fairly unpopulated areas (although not always).

The logic in France has been if they have to momentarily wipe out wifi for military reasons, in a fairly rural area, that's what will happen.

Also it's far from impossible to detect drone video link frequencies especially in non-built up areas.

Any of them using 5.8GHz (ISM band) will standout like a sore thumb, even in a built up area. WiFi is typically directed internally in a building at low power and is using the very well established 2.4GHz and 5.15–5.725GHz.

Drone operators are using 2.4GHz outdoors and with far higher output than your typical WiFi router or device. So, again even on those channels will stand out and can be identified quite quickly if you are serious about finding them.

Hunting them down is far from the impossibility that you're outlining.

perhaps in a very remote area, it is entirely possible to jam Wifi , mind you the nature is that widespread area jamming , has effects miles and miles away from the intended area and such jamming is high power and very indiscriminate, Its only useful in military emergencies .

the same technology could not be used in a urban or mainstream civilian airport, the loss of wide areas wifi would and could be catastrophic

Drone operators are using 2.4GHz outdoors and with far higher output than your typical WiFi router or device

no there are not higher power , to do so its illegal and its not necessary anyway . 2,4Ghz can reach kilometres when unobstructed and with directed antennas

Any of them using 5.8GHz (ISM band) will standout like a sore thumb, even in a built up area.

lots of wifi on 5.8Ghz, all apple devices for example

learn my friend before making pronouncements

Military jamming is wide area and non selective , typically a military jams signals that it itself doesn't need ( which is actually making wifi jamming more difficult for the military )

spread spectrum frequency hopping 2,4Ghz ( and 5,8) was designed to be resistant to interference ( aka jamming ) , and requires in essence the whole band to be jammed with quite high power non directed signals. again this not compatible with operations in an commercial civilian space.

Hunting them down is far from the impossibility that you're outlining.

deploying small ground to air missiles would probably be a better solution , and practical with current military technology , though I suspect the risks associated with such actions in crowded civil airline spaces might render it somewhat heart stopping

Hunting down the user ( using his iPhone ) for example is not impossible, I didn't say it was. I said it was a costly and difficult undertaking , especially in areas of significant wifi activity. in practice , it is not a solution that can be readily implemented

12Phase

They're going to have to come up with some kind of a better way of actually detecting them too. Even in perfect visibility, it's going to be relatively tricky for an airfield to be aware of absolutely every small object in the air.

Most of these drones are tiny.

Would they be THAT problematic for modern engines though?
Given that birds while a lot squishier would typically contain rocks (gizzard used for chewing up food and as a ballast weight) and also could have things like metal rings on feet etc which wouldn't be much worse than a small electric motor.

Anyone flying a drone over an airfield though really deserves what's coming to them legally.

12Phase

BoatMad wrote: »

lots of wifi on 5.8Ghz, all apple devices for example

learn my friend before making pronouncements

ETSI limits use of 5745 to 5825 MHz to Short Range Devices with a maximum 25mW. Those standards are typically adhered to by routers and hardware sold here and would make WiFi devices quite hard to detect beyond their immediate vicinity, especially when they're mostly used in buildings.

A lot of the specs on the UAVs mention 1200mW and even 2000mW transmission which is a hell of a lot more than your typical consumer wifi device will ever use.

BoatMad

12Phase wrote: »

ETSI limits use of 5745 to 5825 MHz to Short Range Devices with a maximum 25mW. Those standards are typically adhered to by routers and hardware sold here and would make WiFi devices quite hard to detect beyond their immediate vicinity, especially when they're mostly used in buildings.

the chip sets in drones use the same power output. drones have line of sight and are high up and free from in line obstructions wifi can go 20km with Yagis . I know , cause I've done it

12Phase

So what are the 1200mW transmitters being mentioned all over the web on specs for various drone camera modules etc being used for?

Homer

Ironic that after registering my drone in December with the IAA that just this morning I received my official registration decals to affix to my drone (1.8kg) in the post.

BoatMad

12Phase wrote: »

ETSI limits use of 5745 to 5825 MHz to Short Range Devices with a maximum 25mW. Those standards are typically adhered to by routers and hardware sold here and would make WiFi devices quite hard to detect beyond their immediate vicinity, especially when they're mostly used in buildings.

A lot of the specs on the UAVs mention 1200mW and even 2000mW transmission which is a hell of a lot more than your typical consumer wifi device will ever use.

yes but ETSI allows devices with output power control to use up to 1W on certain section of the 5,8ghz band ( radio Lan B )

12Phase

BoatMad wrote: »

yes but ETSI allows devices with output power control to use up to 1W on certain section of the 5,8ghz band ( radio Lan B )

Still though, point remains UAVs are easy to spot and potentially triangulate with the right gear. The FAA claim to have made a good bit of progress on this as have various other agencies.

Redesign / retrofitting of aircraft engines to cope with intaking a large drone isn't exactly a small engineering task though.

Irish Steve

The issue with frequencies is a lot more complex that outlined above. The normal "hobby" user will indeed be on 2.4 and 5.8 bands, but it is very easy to use other frequencies that are not necessarily legal for model flying, and with power that means very long range, and once launched, on auto pilot, a drone does not necessarily need any radio input to operate and do what it's been programmed to do, and a jamming system that takes out GPS over an area will cause huge problems for the legitimate (aircraft) users that are in exactly the same airspace. Yes, the aircraft has alternative navigation systems, but unless the aircraft is warned that GPS is about to go off, it is going to cause a lot of heartache (or worse) on the flight deck if the primary navigation system throws its toys out of the pram half a mile from the final approach fix, in a lot of cases, SOP (Standard operating procedure) will call for a missed approach, which is a world of hassle that neither the airlines or the airport operator needs, and closer or lower down the approach, you really don't want things to suddenly stop working, it makes for significant stress!

Yes, Drones can be programmed with "no fly" zones, but with the abundance of free software on the web to control these devices, getting rid of the no fly zones is not going to take someone very long to do, if they have malicious intent, which unfortunately some people will have.

As mentioned above, ANY radio control model has the capability to cause problems, the issue with drones is that they have a much more capable control system than the older aircraft and helicopters, so anyone can fly them (operate them would be a more accurate word, drones are using an autopilot system that's every bit as capable as the autopilot of an A380), and the prices of many of them are a lot less than the older radio model prices.

I have an old (vintage) radio helicopter (Graupner Bell 212) that's been modified to fly with electric power rather than an IC engine, it's over 7 Kg in flight mode, and has a rotor diameter of nearly 1.5 metres, so it's a BIG machine. Flying it is a challenge, the best description I've seen for flying a model helicopter, (even with gyro stabilisation) is that its like trying to balance a tennis ball on the point of a knitting needle.

Were I minded to do so, I could add a similar system to that used on a drone to the heli, and it would then be very possible (and easy) to put it into a location where it would potentially do a lot of damage to a full size aircraft, but I'm not about to even think of doing so, partly because I value my helicopter too much, and partly because I don't want to even think about the possible consequences of a collision with a full size aircraft.

There is no easy or quick way to put the genie back into the bottle again with Drones, they are effectively here to stay, and aviation is going to have to find ways to deal with the issues that they present. That will not be quick, or easy, or cheap, but it will have to be done, for all of the reasons already outlined, flight safety being the most important of them.

BoatMad

Still though, point remains UAVs are easy to spot and potentially triangulate with the right gear. The FAA claim to have made a good bit of progress on this as have various other agencies.

I fail to see how UAVs are easy to spot and triangulation in a busy spread spectrum is far harder then you imagine

even if you then know its there, disrupting it safety or disabling out is not easy, not is tracing the owner

cowboyBuilder

These drones worry me to be honest, how long before one is used to carry explosives to a crowded venue or even a plane taking off or landing ?

and as said, so difficult to regulate ..

BoatMad

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

These drones worry me to be honest, how long before one is used to carry explosives to a crowded venue or even a plane taking off or landing ?

and as said, so difficult to regulate ..

yup , genie out of the bottle alright

12Phase

It's a shame that we can never have cool things like drones without morons, vandals and terrorists causing chaos with them.

They're going to have to spend money dealing with this threat both on the ground with detection and defences at airfields and also by ensuring engines can cope with a UAV strike.

squonk

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

These drones worry me to be honest, how long before one is used to carry explosives to a crowded venue or even a plane taking off or landing ?

and as said, so difficult to regulate ..

While your concerns are valid, I wouldn't lose sleep over it either. As has been shown already, if terrorists really want to take down an aircraft then they'll manage it, no matter what type of regulations or security procedures are in place.

Taking into account that anyone flying a drone in or around an airport must be (rightfully) either considered a terrorist or an idiot, if I was to be involved in an incident, I would be much happier if it occured at an airport where there is infrastructure and services standing by to help.

Also, your average drone hasn't got a great scope for a large payload. Packing explosives in a drone won't cause a lot of hassle really I'd think given the size of payload the drone could carry and the relative speed of the aircraft also.

I think this Heathrow incident was preciipitated by a moron rather than a terrorist. I accept that nothing is impossible when it comes to terrorism but I think we need to take a more balanced view on the whole thing.

IRLConor

squonk wrote: »

I think this Heathrow incident was preciipitated by a moron rather than a terrorist.

There's a pretty blurry line between "moron" and "terrorist". Yes, there are a few smart ones who are hard to defend against but most of them are as smart as the general population so sometimes it can be hard to tell them apart. I suspect you're right though. There's always some eejit who doesn't think through the consequences of their actions.

As for the general threat from drones, I don't see it being much different from the threat posed by more traditional model aircraft, laser flashes, releases of balloons or racing pigeons or radio interference. They're all "mostly gob****e, some accidents, some malicious" kinds of things that need to be dealt with by a blend of regulation, enforcement and procedural countermeasures.

Irish Steve

The threat from Drones is very different from that posed by model aircraft, in as much as the skill required to put a model aircraft into the route of another aircraft is significant, and not exactly easy to do, whereas a drone has a very different capability, in that it will loiter, and can be hovered at a fixed point and altitude, pretty much as a basic function of the controlling hardware. So, it's a lot easier to put it in very close proximity to a known "hot spot", and then refine that positioning accordingly.

To all intents and purposes, the Drone revolution is every wannabe pilots wet dream, while they are not "in the aircraft", the virtual reality of FPV means that they are effectively in it, and seeing the flight in exactly the same way as it would be seen if they were piloting an aircraft in the same location. The "thrill factor" of that experience for someone who desperately wanted to fly, but couldn't should not be underestimated, but we have then to deal with the factor that people outside of the aviation industry don't have the knowledge or understanding of just how dangerous a drone in the wrong place at the right moment can be. Hopefully, some hard hitting education and publicity will resolve most of those issues before there is a serious accident.

I am under no illusions, there are a great number of potential uses of drones that will revolutionise some aspects of things that are at the moment done by "aerial work", and the advantages of those drones being used will be that the cost of the task is exponentially reduced, so the same task can either be carried out more frequently, or the cost saving can be passed on to the end user of whatever service is being provided.

While the Amazon concept of parcel delivery is still some way off, there are a number of applications where they are already being used to very good effect, I've seen some very high quality airborne shots that have been captured by drone, and until recently, they would have required a helicopter to take them, the difference in cost and disturbance between a camera helicopter and a camera drone is massive. The technology is now also very much available to facilitate the use of drones, (either helicopter types or fixed wing) to perform things like coastal surveillance, with the attendant savings, and a much better footprint, it's a lot harder to both see and hear a drone in comparison to a full size craft, especially full size helicopters, or aircraft like the CASA that's extensively used for coastal patrol duties.

Fortunately, the vast majority of people are law abiding when they get to understand the reasons for the law, so in that vein, the makers of drones have a responsibility to publicise the relevant rules relating to drone use in a much more positive ad aggressive manner, so that there can be no confusion about where it is and is not safe to operate such machines.

The aviation industry is also going to have to change, in order to reduce the risks that come from malicious drone usage, and it's going to take time to produce effective counter measures, and a lot longer to see them implemented across the fleets of the airlines.

Change there most certainly will be, for all the reasons that this thread has outlined, and that change is essential to ensuring that air travel remains safe going forward.

I'm either involved with or associated with both of these areas, through having flown full size aircraft, and also flying radio control fixed wing and rotary wing models, and I can see a time where some form of drone will happen as well, and I've also had more than a passing involvement with the software side of the radio equipment that's used with models, which makes it a lot easier to see where the potential areas of conflict lie. While regulation will be a part of the solution, there will be changes that will affect aircraft operators, especially commercial jet operators, as they are the most vulnerable to damage from a drone,

To sum it up, while I'm concerned by the threat that is being presented by the illegal use of drones around airports, it won't stop me flying on scheduled air services. I might become more selective about the routes I choose to fly on, and the time of day that I fly at, or may be even the time of year that I fly at, but I won't be abandoning air travel, the risk presented by drones does not suddenly mean that air travel is inherently unsafe,

arubex

So it transpires that they don't know what they hit, and from the lack of damage to the aircraft it could have been a loose balloon or a bag.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/drone-believed-to-have-hit-british-airways-flight-may-have-been/

The 'drone' claim was made by the local police on Twitter, not by an official aviation source. But it made for the most dramatic headlines and pushed someone's agenda.

It's worth reading that article on the basis of an inspiringly rational and level-headed response by the Transport Minister.

smurfjed

The FAA is unequivocally confirming that it’s a federal crime to shoot down a drone, as John Goglia reports in Forbes.

Goglia explains the FAA offered this ruling in response to his questions on the topic, citing 18 USC. 32, which “makes it a felony to damage or destroy an aircraft.” This is bad news if you were planning to invest in the DroneDefender, a goofy-looking gun that promised to disrupt intrusive drones by bombarding them “with radio waves that disrupt [their] remote control and GPS signals,” as Justin Peters wrote in Future Tense last year.

That said, the FAA’s stance will hardly comes as a revelation to those who’ve been paying attention. Way back in 2014, a New Jersey man was arrested for shooting down a drone. And though he was called to task for unlawful weapons charges rather than a violation of aviation law, the message was clear: However irritating drones may be, it’s probably best not to take vengeance into your own hands.

Goglia, for his own part, asks why the FAA hasn’t yet acted on 18 USC 32, especially given the increasing frequency of human-on-drone violence. “It’s time the United States put an end to these dangerous acts and criminally prosecuted those who shoot at unmanned aircraft,” Goglia writes. He has a point: Back in October, a judge exonerated a Kentucky man who had fired at a drone that intruded onto his property.

http://www.battelle.org/our-work/national-security/tactical-systems/battelle-dronedefender

How about shooting them down?

Irish Steve

smurfjed wrote: »

http://www.battelle.org/our-work/national-security/tactical-systems/battelle-dronedefender

How about shooting them down?

I can see one fundamental issue with that, there is a very real risk of "collateral damage", depending on the size of the drone, and where it is, there is no way to predict what damage a crashing drone may do, or cause. Imagine the implications of a drone coming down uncontrolled and impacting a vehicle travelling at high speed on a motorway,

Even a collision between a drone and a person carries significant risk, and these are the thorny issues that the regulators are going to have to grapple with, as there are too many people who don't understand or appreciate the risks of operating these devices over populated areas.

BoatMad

How about shooting them down?

falling foul of the firearms legislation in this state is not something you want to trifle with

Shannon757

smurfjed wrote: »

http://www.battelle.org/our-work/national-security/tactical-systems/battelle-dronedefender

How about shooting them down?

That's a good idea but you have to consider the other options.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X27-2WDIZR0
I vote for number 4

IRLConor

Shannon757 wrote: »

That's a good idea but you have to consider the other options.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X27-2WDIZR0
I vote for number 4

Also useful for bird scaring.

Bsal

Another incident today at Dublin airport with a drone around 2pm spotted by a cityjet on approach to runway 28 and subsequent arrivals for the next 30min after that. Cityjet reported the drone about 3nm from touchdown about 100m away from them.

The One Doctor

Basically, if you're flying an RC FPV do it somewhere quiet, away from people (especially children) and with plenty of open space around you in case of a crash. Oh yes, and make sure you're outside controlled airspace. That's what I do anyway.

I saw one old idiot flying his fucking quadcopter in a carpark lately (Ardgillan Demense for those who know it). With kids around, you name it. Even landed it in front of a moving car.

Dumb bastard.

tricky D

Davemacsalt wrote: »

Can do , there isn't a problem , I know what I'm doing , I'm a very experienced pilot .

Gone

roundymac

Saw on BBC text that they think the plane was NOT hit by a drone. Could have been a bird. Basicly,,,, they don't know.:o

Irish Steve

Just seen a very encouraging report on Sky news relating to anti drone protective systems, a number were mentioned, one natural, a well trained hawk that is well able to take out a drone, and several different very capable electronics that can find and pinpoint a drone, then either disable it, or even more usefully, force it to return to the point of origin, while being tracked, so the operator can be traced.

This last option is very relevant to dealing with "armed" drones, but being able to track a drone that's in controlled airspace will also be a useful feature, it's only going to need one successful prosecution to make others aware of their risk, and a conviction for something like attempted murder or similar will carry a sufficiently strong deterrent aspect to hopefully get the attention of others who think it's clever to fly drones near aircraft in flight.