[IMG]https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-8QkteMJiLy0/U25bE6wYzVI/AAAAAAAAAjc/LkWVI5MxmfQ/w637-h321-no/plane+collision.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=CNN](CNN) -- A Federal Aviation Administration official warned this week about the dangers of even small unmanned aircraft, pointing specifically to a recent close call involving a drone and a commercial airliner that could have had "catastrophic" results.
Jim Williams, the head of the FAA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) office, discussed various potential perils during a presentation Thursday to those attending the Small Unmanned Systems Business Expo. A video of his talk in San Francisco, and those of others, to those who operate, create or otherwise are involved or interested in such unmanned aircraft was posted to YouTube.
After saying "the FAA has got to be responsive to the entire industry," Williams referred to a pair of incidents in which drones caused injuries to people on the ground. One came at an event at Virginia Motor Speedway in which an "unauthorized, unmanned aircraft" crashed into the stands, and in the other a female triathlete in Australia had to get stitches after being struck by a small drone.
Then, Williams segued to a pilot's recent report of "a near midair collision" with a drone near the airport in Tallahassee, Florida. The pilot said that it appeared to be small, camouflaged, "remotely piloted" and about 2,300 feet up in the air at the time of the incident.
"The pilot said that the UAS was so close to his jet that he was sure he had collided with it," Williams said. "Thankfully, inspection to the airliner after landing found no damage. But this may not always be the case."
According to the FAA, the incident took place on March 22 and involved as U.S. Airways Flight 4650 going from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Tallahassee.
Flightaware.com lists that flight as a CRJ-200, with a capacity for 50 passengers.
The pilot claimed to pass "an unreported and apparently remotely controlled aircraft ... five miles northeast of the Tallahassee airport, according to the federal agency.
Such close calls are rare, the FAA notes.
The pilot reported that the small unmanned aircraft involved looked similar to an F-4 Phantom jet, and not like a helicopter that might hold a camera that many associate more closely with drones. Such planes have gas turbine engines and can fly higher than an average drone, according to the FAA. Neither the drone in this case, nor its pilot, have been identified.
In its own statement, US Airways said that it was aware of this reported "incident with one of our express flights, and we are investigating."
Explaining why this event is significant, Williams referenced to the so-called "Miracle on the Hudson" from 2009, when US Airways Flight 1549 safely crash-landed in New York's Hudson River after striking at least one bird upon takeoff from LaGuardia Airport.
Airplane crash-lands into Hudson River
Such bird strikes are dangerous enough; a drone, even a small one, getting sucked into a jetliner's engine could be even worse, Williams said.
"Imagine a metal and plastic object -- especially with (a) big lithium battery -- going into a high-speed engine," he added. "The results could be catastrophic."
All these incidents speak to "why it is incredibly important for detect-and-avoid standards (for small unmanned aircraft) to be developed and right-of-way rules to be obeyed," Williams said. He added that such standards are in the works.
His agency reiterated this sentiment in its statement Friday.
"The FAA has the exclusive authority to regulate the airspace from the ground up, and a mandate to protect the safety of the American people in the air and on the ground," the agency said. "...Our challenge is to integrate unmanned aircraft into the busiest, most complex airspace in the world. Introduction of unmanned aircraft into America's airspace must take place incrementally and with the interest of safety first."
As to current regulations, Williams noted the FAA has appealed a federal judge's decision in a case involving businessman Raphael Pirker.
Pirker used a remotely operated, 56-inch foam glider to take aerial video for an advertisement for the University of Virginia Medical Center. The FAA then fined him $10,000 for operating the aircraft in a "careless and reckless manner."
A judge on March 6 agreed with Pirker that the FAA overreached by applying regulations for aircraft to model aircraft, and said no FAA rule prohibited Pirker's radio-controlled flight.
Pilot wins case against FAA over commercial drone flight
But on Thursday, Williams said that another judge had stayed this ruling pending the FAA's appeal.
"Nothing has changed from a legal standpoint," he said, "and the FAA continues to enforce the airspace rules."[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/travel/unmanned-drone-danger/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews[/url]
(Video in source)
god damn it skynet
Fucking idiots, you can set up the multi in its flight controler to keep below a certain altitude, and you don't fly near airports.
Breaking news!
[QUOTE=viperfan7;44772968]Fucking idiots, you can set up the multi in its flight controler to keep below a certain altitude, and you don't fly near airports.[/QUOTE]
if common sense was so common, then we wouldn't need half those warning stickers on everything or regulations for everything
There should be different words for different types of drones, the variety is way too big to be summed up with one word. The drone which nearly collided was some kind of jet plane while they later talk about a drone hitting a building. This is what gets people scared as whenever someone says "drone" they think about the kind they hear about the most (which usually is something like the predator drones) while it might just be about the little quadcopters (which can also be scary to some people in other ways)
[QUOTE=scratch (nl);44773135]There should be different words for different types of drones, the variety is way too big to be summed up with one word. The drone which nearly collided was some kind of jet plane while they later talk about a drone hitting a building. This is what gets people scared as whenever someone says "drone" they think about the kind they hear about the most (which usually is something like the predator drones)[/QUOTE]
Agreed, there has to be specific dialogue to distinguish a military UAV/Strike drone, and a hobbyists remote control plane "drone".. I am not emphatic at the use of drones for ingress purposes, but, constantly brandishing them in the media as a misnomer is facetious, and calculated (agenda).
That image sums up CNN so well in so many ways...
[QUOTE=scratch (nl);44773135]There should be different words for different types of drones, the variety is way too big to be summed up with one word. The drone which nearly collided was some kind of jet plane while they later talk about a drone hitting a building. This is what gets people scared as whenever someone says "drone" they think about the kind they hear about the most (which usually is something like the predator drones) while it might just be about the little quadcopters (which can also be scary to some people in other ways)[/QUOTE]
ComDrone for Commerical Drone and MilDrone for Miltary drones.
THANKS OBAMA
[QUOTE=Sableye;44773044]if common sense was so common, then we wouldn't need half those warning stickers on everything or regulations for everything[/QUOTE]
There should be common sense studies in school and university
[QUOTE=Sableye;44773044]if common sense was so common, then we wouldn't need half those warning stickers on everything or regulations for everything[/QUOTE]
that's so people without common sense don't sue.
Like that lady that spilled hot coffee in her lap, sued mcdonalds, and won.
Granted a lot of stuff do need warning labels.
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;44775290]that's so people without common sense don't sue.
Like that lady that spilled hot coffee in her lap, sued mcdonalds, and won.
Granted a lot of stuff do need warning labels.[/QUOTE]
iirc the lady that sued for spilling hot coffee was handed the coffee without the lid on all the way and the burns were really extreme you should google the pictures
but anyway, I agree that there needs to be different names for these, I can never tell if people are talking about military drones or hobbyist ones
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;44775290]that's so people without common sense don't sue.
Like that lady that spilled hot coffee in her lap, sued mcdonalds, and won.
Granted a lot of stuff do need warning labels.[/QUOTE]
That story actually had truth to it, coffee should never be hot enough to literally burn your flesh to the bone like that, therefore it's a bad example. But i do see your point.
Whoever was flying that (apparently model) aircraft is a dumbshit for flying near an airport, at least without calling the airport and getting permission/letting them know.
Germany did it a decade ago
[video=youtube;NBPa0q8XFls]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBPa0q8XFls[/video]
[QUOTE=Sableye;44773044]if common sense was so common, then we wouldn't need half those warning stickers on everything or regulations for everything[/QUOTE]
Warning: Non-ice coffee is probably hot.
"not like a helicopter that might hold a camera that many associate more closely with drones"
I don't know about you guys, but I still associate the word drone as something that makes brown people and journalists explode.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;44773184]Agreed, there has to be specific dialogue to distinguish a military UAV/Strike drone, and a hobbyists remote control plane "drone".. I am not emphatic at the use of drones for ingress purposes, but, constantly brandishing them in the media as a misnomer is facetious, and calculated (agenda).[/QUOTE]
We don't call what we have drones, I usually go with multicopter for the, well, multicopters like what I have, other people use UAV or UAS, while RC airplanes and helicopters are just that, RC airplanes and RC helicopters,
[QUOTE=Bradyns;44773184]Agreed, there has to be specific dialogue to distinguish a military UAV/Strike drone, and a hobbyists remote control plane "drone".. I am not emphatic at the use of drones for ingress purposes, but, constantly brandishing them in the media as a misnomer is facetious, and calculated (agenda).[/QUOTE]
like it or not, the use of drone is exactly the same as the use of assault weapon, they are both fear words that they can throw into any article or story to make it buzz
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;44775290]that's so people without common sense don't sue.
Like that lady that spilled hot coffee in her lap, sued mcdonalds, and won.
Granted a lot of stuff do need warning labels.[/QUOTE]
The reason she won that case is because the coffee was at a temperature that was higher then what is allowed for hot drinks.
[QUOTE=viperfan7;44778346]We don't call what we have drones, I usually go with multicopter for the, well, multicopters like what I have, other people use UAV or UAS, while RC airplanes and helicopters are just that, RC airplanes and RC helicopters,[/QUOTE]
Could UAW, Unmanned Aerial Weapon be used to distinguish between weaponized drones and non weaponized drones?
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;44775290]that's so people without common sense don't sue.
Like that lady that spilled hot coffee in her lap, sued mcdonalds, and won.
Granted a lot of stuff do need warning labels.[/QUOTE]
well since i just got done in an ethics class where we discussed this...
the mc donnalds coffe case came down to this
1) they used coffee that was like ~300 degrees F, much hotter than needed
2) styrofoam cups while good at preventing heat transfer, loose their rigidity at that temperatures above boiling
3) the lid was the only thing holding the cup togather, and it was on so that she couldn't remove it without significant force
4) her pants melted from the scalding super heated liquid
also they tried to cover it up, which in the engineering world today is a big no
[QUOTE=Crimor;44778377]Could UAW, Unmanned Aerial Weapon be used to distinguish between weaponized drones and non weaponized drones?[/QUOTE]
I like it
[QUOTE=Crimor;44778377]Could UAW, Unmanned Aerial Weapon be used to distinguish between weaponized drones and non weaponized drones?[/QUOTE]
The United Auto Workers union leadership might disapprove.
[QUOTE=Crimor;44778377]Could UAW, Unmanned Aerial Weapon be used to distinguish between weaponized drones and non weaponized drones?[/QUOTE]
There's already such a distinction. Where UAV is Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, armed drones are designated UCAV, Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle.
[QUOTE=Sableye;44778385]well since i just got done in an ethics class where we discussed this...
the mc donnalds coffe case came down to this
1) they used coffee that was like ~300 degrees F, much hotter than needed
2) styrofoam cups while good at preventing heat transfer, loose their rigidity at that temperatures above boiling
3) the lid was the only thing holding the cup togather, and it was on so that she couldn't remove it without significant force
4) her pants melted from the scalding super heated liquid
also they tried to cover it up, which in the engineering world today is a big no[/QUOTE]
you understand that 300 degrees would be far beyond boiling
like if coffee was 300 degrees, the employee would drop the cup due to the heat almost immediately.
the cup of coffee was around 180 degrees,, which is still insane but it -was- the standard
mickeys used to operate on a 30 degree range around 180 Fahrenheit, and so didn't most other burger joints. Nowadays it's like MAX 180 degrees.
[QUOTE=Sableye;44773044]if common sense was so common, then we wouldn't need half those warning stickers on everything or regulations for everything[/QUOTE]Except any pilot with any sense of how planes and air traffic work knows this even without being taught. What do you call that? I think it's called Common Sense.
I miss when drones were called UAVs :(
Drone is such sensationalist bullshit
These dumbasses are going to get the hobby banned. Fucking idiots, flying near airports. Then you've got all the new DIJ Phantom owners, flying over crowds because "it's just an RC multirotor". Jesus Christ, no one with the least bit of common sense does these things, especially with the pictures you get when you search "multirotor injury" (pretty gory, don't do it if you're eating) but then you get morons that come in and ruin things for everyone in the hobby. It's not like the media is innocent either though, calling anything that flies without a person inside a "drone", using the existing connotation of the word to breed sensationalism and farm page views.
Nothing makes me fucking madder than when people come into my store and say "AY YO YOU GOT DEM DERE DROENS?" I have to fucking correct them saying that they're quadcopters/helicopters/fucking planes.
Drone =/= hobby-grade r/c plane/heli/quad.
You can turn one [I]into[/I] a drone sure but that's your own fucktivity. My products are not drones you inept fucking retard...
...sorry about the rant, just wanted to say something. It also seems that any flying or even fucking ground based r/c vehicle to the media is a goddamn drone.
[editline]11th May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=joshjet;44783090]These dumbasses are going to get the hobby banned. Fucking idiots, flying near airports. Then you've got all the new DIJ Phantom owners, flying over crowds because "it's just an RC multirotor". Jesus Christ, no one with the least bit of common sense does these things, especially with the pictures you get when you search "multirotor injury" (pretty gory, don't do it if you're eating) but then you get morons that come in and ruin things for everyone in the hobby. It's not like the media is innocent either though, calling anything that flies without a person inside a "drone", using the existing connotation of the word to breed sensationalism and farm page views.[/QUOTE]
Also this, definitely. If some fuckheads end up getting r/c anything banned i'll be fucking furious. I love my planes, cars, boats, and heli's.
So yeah, this kind of shit isn't just restricted to gun ownership. Us r/c owners have to fight to keep retards from getting our toys banned.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
