Heathrow Plane In Near Miss With Drone 325
An anonymous reader writes with news about a near miss between a drone and a plane near Heathrow. "An unidentified drone came close to hitting a plane as it landed at Heathrow, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has confirmed. An Airbus A320 pilot reported seeing a helicopter-style drone as the jet was 700 feet off the ground on its approach to the runway at 1416 GMT on 22 July. The CAA has not identified the airline or how close the drone came to the plane, which can carry 180 people. It gave the incident an 'A' rating, meaning a 'serious risk of collision'. This is the highest incident rating the CAA can give. Investigators were unable to identify the drone, which did not appear on air traffic control radar and disappeared after the encounter."
It won't be long (Score:2, Insightful)
until these morons flying drones over and around airfields cause death, probably some kind of small light training vehicle with an inexperience "pilot".
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be more realistic here. People shouldn't be stupid and fly drones at the airport, sure. But they are vastly more likely to cause property damage than death if a collision actually happens.
The last thing we need is 'officials' wetting their pants over yet another 'dire threat' and overreacting again.
The drone's radio control has a limited range and well known frequency range. It should be possible to track the idiots down, fine them, and remind them that if they actually have a collision the damages wi
Re:It won't be long (Score:5, Insightful)
Really now? You trust a some random moron who's motivation and skills are complete unknowns? You have a higher opinion of mankind than I.
Yes, it's unlikely that a small drone will crash a commercial jet. No, it's not impossible at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot has spoken: risk management should be performed with no mind whatsoever paid to the likelihood of a risk.
I hope yall have meteor insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The same stupidity every time.
Re:It won't be long (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop being stupid. There is a ton of risks to flying airplanes that are relevant, this is _not_ one of them.
It is an avoidable risk, in that we can tell idiotic humans to stop flying quadcopters near planes, you fools! Unfortunately, geese and other dumb animals cannot understand us when we tell them this, but humans do... and then choose to ignore it.
These people are presumably buzzing planes on purpose as a "how close can I get" thrill, or to get close-up footage of planes. These are not valid reasons to wilfully and knowingly risk the safety of an aircraft and its passengers. There are laws with names like "reckless endangerment" for this sort of thing....
Re: (Score:2)
It is an avoidable risk, in that we can tell idiotic humans to stop flying quadcopters near planes, you fools!
Oh, just tell them to stop and that will solve the problem. How little some people know of human nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Are DeVry doing pilot training now? (Score:5, Informative)
Around an airport controlled airspace is shaped like an inverted wedding cake. The smallest layer - which contains the runways - touches the ground; therefore you can be knee height in there and still flying illegally if you don't have permission.
Re: (Score:2)
So do you support letting people drive on the runway in the name of freedom? Or on the left lane? Or park their car in the middle of the highway?
Or do you simply think quadcopters should be exempt from regulation for some reason?
Re: (Score:2)
and yet we still have laws against homicide.
Re:It won't be long (Score:4, Insightful)
Your utility theory about the value of the drone fails to take into account human stupidity. The fact a collision almost did occur disproves your entire thesis. Anyone prioritizing the value of their drone back would not fly near airports in the first place, obviously. Airspace around airports obviously needs protecting, not against your hypothetical rational drone operator, but against the irrational drone operators which this story proves exist.
Re: (Score:2)
So you logic is:
Because it almost, but did not, happen, everything is ok and there is no ened for rules to prevent further almost or even actual happenings?
Really you are a moron. You have no clue what you are talking about, or any concept of risk management.
Further, a single bird very much is a potential threat to a plane. Bird strikes cause over 600 million dollars in damage to the airline industry every year. Whule a variety of birds can be found at airports, the most common birds encountered on airports
Re: (Score:2)
Forget paranoia, more likely about the $$ it costs (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's trust Wikipedia on bird strikes [wikipedia.org] and assume that small objects (under about 10kg) rarely cause a catastrophic collision, mostly it looks like bird strikes and similar are survivable for planes, they just cost lots of money. Looks like most aircraft aren't going to fall out of the sky even faced with a drone operator who successfully crashes into a plane. However the photos show it can make a pretty mess of expensive jet engines.
So I suspect that commercial interest might also be at play, it would be in the airlines' interest to claim a terrorism threat to stop idiots going to the supermarket in the morning then flying a drone near commercial airspace in the afternoon. Going to cost a lot to replace one of those jet engines from the look of the wikipedia photos showing what happens when a bird hits them.
Seems like if you want to commit an act of terror then a 5kg lump of plastic isn't likely to knock an airliner out of the sky, but it will probably cost the airlines a lot of money so I can imagine they'd quite like some regulations in place to stop idiots flying them near their planes.
Re: (Score:2)
Going to cost a lot to replace one of those jet engines from the look of the wikipedia photos showing what happens when a bird hits them.
Cost of engine repairs
Cost of plane being out of service while the engine is repaired
Cost of (unwarranted) bad publicity from all those passenger youtube videos showing "ZOMG The engine just exploded!!!"
Cost of dealing with all the passengers who are now delayed because the flight didn't make it to the gate on time.
And probably several other things that I can't think of right now
Re:Forget paranoia, more likely about the $$ it co (Score:5, Interesting)
I would rather trust the CAA's own reporting and videos on Youtube ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] ) showing bird strikes and what one (that's 1!) goose can do to a £230,000 engine. Three strikes a year which result in emergency landings, and that's just in UK airspace. Sometimes strikes aren't through engines, but through cockpit windows.
That is a risk.
Drones? That's just fucking lunacy. I'd go so far as to call it malicious intent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite: Before 9/11 there was a small risk of anybody flying a plane into the twin towers: It required either a very disgruntled pilot or people learning to fly when they have no reason to. In actual fact it required exceptional stupidity by the FBI when they ignored the flight-instructor telling them about these strange people that were not interested in learning to land. The risk has _not_ increased, people flying wide-body aircraft into large buildings is still something that basically never happens a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, the risk of flying a plane into a building in New York wasn't zero before 9/11 not because, "although it hadn't happened, it was possible", but because someone already flew a B-25 Mitchell bomber into the Empire State Building
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from the fact that WTC1 and 2 were both designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft (albeit one not laden with fuel)? Way to mitigate the risk that, according to you, didn't exist!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It won't be long (Score:5, Informative)
That technology has been available for a few decades.
Yes it has. But there has been a fundamental shift in the accessability of the technology. A majority of this technology has historically been radio transmitters that cost hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars, recievers that cost similar, and models that actually require a solid understanding of aerodynamics to build, trim and fly. Dozens if not hundreds of hours of work to build it. An big investment of time, money, and a dash of pride meant that flyers protected their craft like a their first born. Flying near an airfield would be unspeakable; No way in hell do I want my toy wrecked by errant prop or jet wash! (..I guess it would suck if I brought an actual plane down as well.. I guess).
The only thing different about drones is that they are slow and hence easier seen.
I disagree. Any spanner with a credit card and a desire to see their neighbours tits can go buy a ready to fly FPV drone cheap on eBay, hook it up to their smartphone, and get in the air in a second. No expensive equipment investment, no time invested in the build, no incentive to protect their flyer. THIS is the difference, and it has seen people who would never consider an RC aircraft suddenly snapping them up like the "toys" they are often marketed to be. So now you have a bunch of people who have no knowledge about aerodynamics or aviation generally who suddenly think "wouldn't it be sick to go fly this around an airport for lulz and photos", and suddenly we have the problems we are now seeing. Most fixed and rotary wing hobbyists I know have an inherent respect for their fellow flyers, be they scale or full size pilots. We all share the sky, and we'd rather not kill each other.
HISTORICALLY there has been close to zero risk (no such thing as zero risk, where there are humans involved, there is always room for something to fuck up) but now the technology is more accessable to the "pleb public", the risks of serious incident is and will continue to increase. As you have said, there have been next to no incidents historically, but as many have pointed out to you, the fact this story even exists to publish is a demonstration that the danger is indeed increasing. To ignore these factors is about as ignorant as using an absolute term like "zero actual risk" when there is no way for you to know what is and has happened globally in the past.. however many years of RC flying as a hobby.
Re: (Score:2)
Not Insightful.
The only thing different about drones is that they are slow and hence easier seen.
Neither true nor untrue, just simply compeltely and totally ignorant and unfactual.
There is zero new risk here and history shows that there is zero actual risk in this as nobody ever brought down a commercial airliner with a model airplane or helicopter. AFAIK it has not even been tried, ever.
the risk has increased simply due to proliferation.
the fact it hasnt happened yet is not proof that it cant happen.
all you have to do FOD out an engine on takeoff and the plane is going down.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing different about drones is that they are slow and hence easier seen.
No, absolutely not! Motion is much easier to see. Consider a deer; hard to spot when it's standing still, much easier once it starts moving.
The easiest way spot other aircraft when I'm flying (did I mention I'm a student pilot?) is because of their apparent motion against a (usually contrasting) background. When birds or other aircraft are at the same altitude as me they appear just about on the horizon, and they're much harder to spot. Even gliders with 15-18 meter wingspans are tough to spot when th
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a non-issue in that these sorts of things could be prevented with proper regulation of drones, or at least the chances of something like this happening could be greatly reduced. No amount of rules, training, or regulation can control what the birds are going to do. Your analogy is very bad.
Re: (Score:3)
you apparently have zero knowledge of airfield, or birds.
or logic.
if a drone operator is flying near an airport he is by definition doing by by choice, willingly in violation of already established FAA regulations.
and if hes already willfully violating regulations and flying near an airport it is no longer a given that he will try to avoid a collision,
because why is he flying over an active flightpath int he first place?!?!?
Rationality and motive are called into question by the very situation you have pose
Re: (Score:2)
And third you are being stupid. A model helicopter is actually far more dangerous as it has a hardened rotor shaft. Does anybody call for them being banned? No. Has one ever being used to bring down a commercial airliner? No.
Re: (Score:2)
A model helicopter is actually far more dangerous as it has a hardened rotor shaft. Does anybody call for them being banned? No. Has one ever being used to bring down a commercial airliner? No.
It's also significantly more difficult to operate than a quadcopter, as well as more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those amateurs are not going to fly anything that is a real threat.
Re: (Score:2)
And mostly piloted by experienced people
Yes.
dedicated to their hobby
Yes.
that typically keep in regular contact with air traffic control
No. They simply keep away from airports.
An unidentified drone (Score:5, Funny)
So, being that it is called "An unidentified drone", do we know that it was a drone and not a bird or something else?
How about we just call it for an Unidentified Flying Object until we figured out what it was?
Re:An unidentified drone (Score:4, Funny)
Re:An unidentified drone (Score:5, Funny)
And if a news story referred to "an unidentified car", you'd be asking if it wasn't really a freight train because, "unidentified". *eye roll*
Re:An unidentified drone (Score:5, Funny)
No, this is Slashdot so you would get a 40 count thread with various potential impact energies depending on whether it was an Audi or a Ford Truck. Somebody would bring up a DeLorean and somebody else would talk about 1.8 gigawatts. Then there would be another 40 replies about how the OP should not have used watts, but instead discussed energies in Coulombs/erg.
Re:An unidentified drone (Score:4, Funny)
somebody else would talk about 1.8 gigawatts.
Don't be silly, they'd talk about One point twenty one jiggawatts [youtube.com]. Then there would be a flamewar on the correct pronunciation of "giga" and whether a lightning strike can deliver 1.21Gw.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:An unidentified drone (Score:4, Funny)
And somehow it was all systemd's fault.
Re: (Score:3)
When they say it's a "drone" that means they did identify it as a drone, otherwise they would say unidentified flying object (UFO).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:An unidentified drone (Score:4, Insightful)
That would not fit the agenda of the people blowing this up beyond all proportions. What happened was basically a non-event. What gets reported is a near mass-casualty. There is a political agenda behind this, as there sure is no valid risk-management angle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously. Specifically, airlines don't want their $$$ planes to turn into flaming scrap, and passengers don't want to die. What's less certain is your agenda.
Near miss? (Score:5, Informative)
When two planes almost collide, they call it a near miss. It's a near hit. A collision is a near miss.
George Carlin
No bigger than ... (Score:5, Insightful)
N417SW SKYWEST AIRLINES FLIGHT SKW2608 BOMBARDIER CL600 AIRCRAFT ON FINAL, STRUCK BIRDS, LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT, DAMAGE TO AIRCRAFT IS MINOR, SACRAMENTO, CA
http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/a... [faa.gov]
UAVs (sometimes called "drones") shouldn't be operating around airports but the likelihood of one downing a transport category aircraft is just about zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearlty you see no distinction between a soft squishy bird and solid lump of metal, plastic and potentially explosive lithium batteries hitting a fan blade at 200mph.
Even if 1 engine out is unlikely to bring a plane down I doubt an airline really wants to pay millions for a new engine (not to mention the service disruption of the airliner being taken out of service) just because some juvenile asshat gets his kicks playing with his toy near a flight path.
Re:No bigger than ... (Score:4, Insightful)
" A solid lump of flesh and bone or a solid lump of styrofoam, plastic, and some small bits of metal." FTFY
I would worry more about the "potentially explosive" lithium batteries, but the actual energy involved is likely less than the rated capacity of 57Wh (for a DJI Phantom, a fairly large consumer model), or 205kJ of energy. If you consider they fire multiple chickens (at 3-4kg) at a combined vector of aircraft speed and compressor blade speed of 275m/s, the impact energy is north of 300(+/-)kJ. If you're concerned about high temperatures, remember that this is a jet engine made of high temperature steel and ceramics. Don't forget that they also fire 120+g balls of ice into the engines at hundreds of m/s, so it's not all "soft stuff" they test against these engines.
That's not to say that a large drone might not do damage to an engine, but if you combine the chance of an idiot drone pilot *and* the chance of getting ingested into an engine *and* the chance of actually having an impact which severely damages the engine you're talking very very remote possibilities. You may as well start patrolling the highways to make sure nobody flies above them for fear of the drone losing power and diving into traffic. Current laws cover the conditions well enough for general safety (glide slope and general hobby a/c altitude limits).
Re: (Score:2)
... just because some juvenile asshat gets his kicks playing with his toy near a flight path.
Like this dickhead [youtube.com] - literally over the road from a London Heathrow [google.co.uk] runway.
My office is on an old Halifax (WW2 bomber) airfield and we get RAF Pumas and Chinooks doing low (shakes the building low) level training over it. So when I built my quadcopter and was testing/tuning it, I double checked whether we are in a MATZ [wikipedia.org] - it ends on pretty much over our office (though the chart is a small scale, so it' difficult to be precise), so I can fly up to a thousand feet (if I was stupid enough).
The problem is that
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lemme get this straight:
you're concerned about aircraft noise reducing the value of your property, but refuse to accept regulations that may (just may) prevent an aircraft from falling onto you while you're sleeping.
O ... kay ...
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike#Incidents
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, if you weigh it against the amount of passenger km/s in that same period.
Re:No bigger than ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bird strikes can be dangerous if one goes into the engine. This rarely downs an aircraft unless you have a two-engined aircraft and both engines get hit at the same time. Remember the plane that landed in the Hudson after a double bird strike? That was an Airbus A320.
Whether this is a significant risk depends on what the drone flyer is trying to do. If they are trying to get close-up pictures of aircraft then they are probably no bigger risk than birds. If they are aiming for the engines because they want to take down an aircraft, then there is a significant risk, particularly of the drone is carrying some load designed to do damage. Why would someone do this? I dunno. Why do people use laser pointers to try and blind pilots? Maybe not terrorism: some people are just dicks.
What do we do? Well, if they are radio-controlled then we can pinpoint the controller by radio. It would be a nice problem to design a set of drones that can triangulate the source of a radio signal, home in on it, and track what they find.
just about zero (Score:2)
But not quite zero [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give you another anectdote [reuters.com]. And you can do this all day. It's fun!
How about "UAVs (sometimes called "drones") shouldn't be operating around airports but the likelihood of one downing a transport category aircraft is low, certainly not zero and something responsible people are concerned about".
Re: (Score:2)
N417SW SKYWEST AIRLINES FLIGHT SKW2608 BOMBARDIER CL600 AIRCRAFT ON FINAL, STRUCK BIRDS, LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT, DAMAGE TO AIRCRAFT IS MINOR, SACRAMENTO, CA
http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/a... [faa.gov]
UAVs (sometimes called "drones") shouldn't be operating around airports but the likelihood of one downing a transport category aircraft is just about zero.
Might depend on if it's got a couple of sticks of dynamite (or whatever) stuck to it when it gets sucked into an engine.
Re:No bigger than ... (Score:5, Insightful)
What on earth is the point you are making. He said drones shouldn't be near airports then made the valid point that a typical drone would almost certainly not cause a crash when hitting a large plane. Obviously if you strap a bomb to one the calculation changes, but then so would the calculation if you shoved a grenade up a ducks ass and managed to hit a plane with it! Neither point is counter to his post.
Re: (Score:2)
What if you strap a gas tank or high-capacity battery to the drone?
Re: (Score:2)
I miss the old Slashdot when phrases like 'titanium or other such strong material' would not have appeared.
Titanium is many things but strong isn't one of them. Try again. The battery's probably a bigger concern.
Phew (Score:3)
Thank goodness my Amazon drone-delivered goods were not destroyed by this incident.
This is _not_ an plane-vs-plane collision risk... (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless said drone carries some hardened steel components, this is more like a collision with a bird. Even airplane engines (the most vulnerable part) are designed to withstand that. A direct collision will probably result in some light paint scratches on the airplane. Unlike the case of an airplane collision, the destruction of the drone is not an issue here.
What is going on here is that some bureaucrats inflate the risk perception of something that is basically a non-issue to look really, really dangerous. This is likely done for purely political reasons, to inflate their perceived importance.
A bird carying a grenade? (Score:2)
For one, commercial quad-copters are a lot larger than the average bird unless you are talking about a giant eagle.
Second, if the drone is powered by a LiON battery pack and gets sucked into the engine, when the drone is struck by the impeller it COULD rupture the battery pack in a way that causes a small explosion. I don't know if this would be enough to damage the engine but I certainly would not dismiss it.
Re:A bird carying a grenade? (Score:5, Informative)
And you think anybody would be flying a commercial quad-copter near a runway approach? That is BS. Nobody is going to risk not only a very expensive piece of equipment but also a huge fine and possible loss of permission to operate drones. This clearly was something far lighter and far less expensive.
Also, Li-Ion can _not_ explode. It burns, very hotly, but it burns _slow_. There is no "could" here. Really, there is not. Goose feathers are a far better explosive than Li-Ion batteries. They _can_ explode if pulverized finely enough and mixed just right. Does that happen? No. It does not. Would it be a problem? No. Not enough energy in there to do actual damage. If you want a drone to blow up an airplane engine, you better add some pretty damn powerful explosive.
Re: (Score:2)
No. There has been zero explosions of Li-Ion batteries. There have been ruptures of _casings_ of Li-Ion batteries and they are not very dangerous as these casings have safety-valves. It is a bit like popping a bottle of champagne and less dangerous. Sure, if you do that right next to your ear, you will get hurt. Drones carry Li-Polymer as they are lighter and these cannot under any circumstances even produce that "pop". But even Li-Ion would be a total non-issue as a pressure-rupture on this scale is not so
Re: (Score:2)
I had occasion to see cheap Ebay li-ion batteries "explode". There is a pop, but that pop is then followed by a small tongue of flame and smoke. This lasts a few seconds but it ruins whatever that tongue of flame was pointing at. I certainly would not want that in my pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
No tongue of flame, but you might like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Flames on this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What that engine is designed to do is already between a lithium fire and an explosion. Don't worry about the lithium.
Having said that, anyone operating a drone on an airport (without authorisation from the tower) is an idiot and should, at the least, lose their drone.
If it becomes a real problem I vote for a hunter that just shoots them down before they get anywhere dangerous.
As for bird strikes: Those do bring down the occasional aircraft. We can't do much about them. However, there is no need to actively
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Batteries found on a drone are not a problem. Stop being stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
"Withstand" is a relative term... The engine is designed not to explode in a ball of fire and take the aircraft with it if hit by a bird, but that doesn't mean it will continue working properly. At the very least the aircraft will have to loop round and land again for inspection.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you forgotten that drones are energy-constrained and hence need to be light? Also, if somebody actually wants to bring down a plane, a model helicopter does the job just fine when packed with enough explosives. Really no different from a drone, but available for the last few decades. There is _no_ new risk here.
Toys (Score:2)
Goose Strike Bollocks (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm fed up with hearing the old trope that engines are tested by firing geese into them. Whilst this is true, the test is to ensure that the engine does not completely disintegrate peppering the cabin with shrapnel. The engine is most certainly not unscathed and if not written off completely would require extensive and costly refurbishment.
A drone may not be as heavy as a goose but it would very likely cause damage to the turbine blades resulting in reduced power and vibration and necessitating expensive repairs. Reduced power would also pose a danger.
Consequently, it goes without saying that airports do everything possible to prevent bird strikes and will presumably do the same for drones.
It's unfortunate that idiots like this (and the idiots that shine lasers into cockpits) will spoil it for us all. Inevitably, good toys will eventually be banned.
Re: (Score:2)
In the case that this becomes a real problem I hope that the airports are going to employ hunters that shoot the drones down. The cost would be limited, for the airport. The cost for the idiot who flew his drone there would be quite big.
This is why we cannot have nice things... (Score:2)
...idiots like this will make sure that it's only a question of time before drones are forbidden/regulated.
Re:Panic! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it IS a threat. And a responsible person wouldn't be flying these things where they can put other people's lives at risk.
Yet airports DO take measures to discourage birds from being in their vicinity. Now, most birds generally don't fear fines and prison sentences, so the measures usually take the form of: (i) changing the environment, to make it less appealing -- removing surrounding trees, food sources, etc; (ii) trained birds of prey; (iii) sound-generating devices.
RC aircraft have historically been used by a small number of (responsible) hobbyists. Drones are becoming more widespread, and their owners are starting to include idiots.
It's a shame that some idiots are behaving this way. I say release the falcons on them!
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we hear about incidents with drones but not about incidents with RC aircraft?
Because "drone" is the word which the news now uses to describe RC aircraft. The reason they do that is that "drone" sounds much scarier than "RC aircraft".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Panic! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a reference for this?
All the bird related large aircraft (includes jet fighters) bird related crashes have been the result of flying into a flock of birds -- enough to clog the engine intake and cause the engine(s) to flame out.
Re: (Score:3)
really??
This one was hobbled by a single bird: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously a brick would probably ding a couple turbine blades and that's about it. See exactly how many turbine blades get damaged by say a 5 pound bird [youtube.com] during testing. A brick or the metal from a camera case would be through there so fast that maybe one or two blades would be dinged. As for the flammable Li-On battery - exactly what do you think a jet engine is? A nice calm environment? It's an inferno where jet fuel is being combusted. I doubt such a battery being burned would be any hotter than the condi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, a thing made mostly out of solid metal is much more dangerous than a bird.
Bullets are made of solid metal. Most hobbyist R/C aircraft, that are considered drones, are mostly Styrofoam and/or plastic. The hand built ones are usually balsa wood wrapped in shrink wrap plastic film. There are a few larger hand built R/C plane s with metal skin. But I don't think I've ever heard of hobbyists at that level being so irresponsible. It's become more of a problem since the relatively cheap "ready to fly" planes have gained popularity.
Re: (Score:3)
Do go back under your bridge (Score:2)
And look on the plus side - if an aircraft does come down because of a drone taking out an engine then at least the bridge might offer you some protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Its hard on here to tell when people are being sarcastic because some of the genuine opinions are so out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but a drone hitting the fan of a jet engine can be quite damaging.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Those same engines are tested by firing frozen chickens into them while they are running.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes you wonder how well they'll handle a clump of metal making up a drone motor or battery.
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm fairly sure they don't continue running after the test.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. And I'm sure they'll survive a fluffy pillow too. How about throwing in a battery or rotor engine?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Sure, a drone carrying explosives or a long steel rod could do real damage. But a model helicopter or model plane could the same and that risk has existed for a long, long time. AFAIK nothing ever happened. There is no risk angle that "drone" brings in here.
Re:Creating Precedence (Score:5, Insightful)
A pilot earning a small fortune, whose entire professional life is based on trust in him to save lives, whose entire career can be blighted by a single "what I saw wasn't there" incident, who's sitting next to co-pilots, lying in order to get an aircraft that he probably plays with at home himself banned?
Yeah. Right. It's all a conspiracy. Or some dickhead tested out his kids Christmas present and didn't know the laws surrounding drones because "it's just a toy", or wanted to get a cool shot of a plane taking off.
Heathrow is restricted airspace. NOTHING should be in that area, it's the world's busiest airport. You report ANYTHING out of the ordinary as a matter of course, as a pilot. And radar won't see a drone any more than it will see a house, or a car, or a cloud, or a big bird on it's own, or a lost birthday balloon. It's looking for aircraft. And all aircraft carry transponders blurting out their name and position by law anyway, which is the basis for air traffic control. Radar isn't there to find these kinds of things.
Occam's Razor. Either it's a conspiracy by the airports, the pilots, the governments and the CAA to ban drones that they themselves are using. Or it's some idiot with a Christmas toy. And they are already having enough problems with laser pointers, etc. by such idiots. I'm going with the later.