Drone hits British Airways plane approaching Heathrow Airport

[Trumple]

As someone who lives near Heathrow and also flies drones regularly, I can say you'd have to be doing this deliberately to actually hit a plane. There's just nowhere near the airport that you might accidentally find yourself flying in, such as a park. It's all motorways for miles. Someone flying there would be absolutely aware of what they're doing.

Worth noting that the plane landed safely and was cleared for its next flight.

[QUOTE=pentium;50155128]The current system is not working. People are simply not listening or caring enough to be compliant. At that point you can either go full-nazi and make the regulations so bullshit it's just not worth the effort anymore or publically fuck a few people over to demonstrate that while you are given a large amount of freedom on where you can fly, do not think that it gives you the right to ignore whatever rules are currently in place.[/QUOTE]

I beg to differ. People are listening, you just don't hear about them. Of all the millions and millions of drones sold each year, we still only hear about a handful of incidents. It's actually incredible that this is the first time a strike has been confirmed, considering the number of people who own them.

The regulations are enforced, and the vast majority stick to them. This idiot is clearly an outlier.

[Worldwaker]

[QUOTE=Trumple;50155552]As someone who lives near Heathrow and also flies drones regularly, I can say you'd have to be doing this deliberately to actually hit a plane. There's just nowhere near the airport that you might accidentally find yourself flying in, such as a park. It's all motorways for miles. Someone flying there would be absolutely aware of what they're doing.

Worth noting that the plane landed safely and was cleared for its next flight.

I beg to differ. People are listening, you just don't hear about them. Of all the millions and millions of drones sold each year, we still only hear about a handful of incidents. [B]It's actually incredible that this is the first time a strike has been confirmed, considering the number of people who own them.[/B]

The regulations are enforced, and the vast majority stick to them. This idiot is clearly an outlier.[/QUOTE]

It's not the first time, it's just hit the major news media circuit.

[Trumple]

[QUOTE=Worldwaker;50155884]It's not the first time, it's just hit the major news media circuit.[/QUOTE]

Do you have a source for that? To my knowledge, no other air collisions have happened with drones. I follow drone news quite actively as it's my hobby.

[insistent]

[QUOTE=Saxon;50150272]It isn't that big of a deal unless we reach the point where the sky is covered in drones. Just about any well engineered plane from the Cessna to the 747 is rated to handle bird strikes, it would take a really shitty pilot or a bad plane for a Phantom III to take it out.[/QUOTE]

I made my first drone around 2012, no one knew this even existed back then, now everyone does and want one, wave of bs is going to make it illegal i can feel it

[raz r23]

[QUOTE=Bradyns;50150209]It was only a matter of time before an event of this nature occurred.

Short of regulating specific frequency bands that quad-copters and other RC aircraft operate at and jamming that specific band, there is very little (logistically) to stop this from happening again.[/QUOTE]

that's pretty hard to do I build quadcopters in each controller that I buy you can add other streams to 3 or 5 even then every quadcopter these days comes with a flight controller chip will probably in the craft without the controller if it loses contact with the controller the Drone automatically go to a certain height and fly back to its original destination point

[editline]19th April 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=Sableye;50150323]A plane can handle a birdstrike but nobody wants to have to replace a ten million dollar engine because some bloke was flying his chunk of metal where he shouldn't.

Seriously, if a drone gets sucked into an engine that engine is coming off the plane when it lands

I do like DJI's approach in that they've implemented geofencing but they also have an app that lets people find safe places to fly as well[/QUOTE]

this only works if you haven't upgraded firmware for your flight controller anybody that has a brain you could customize their flight controllers and there's plenty of them to choose from in the free market I personally don't use a flight controller of this modification but I don't fly next to f****** airport

[editline]19th April 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=adam1172;50150948]Coincidentially, since you've mentioned the Cessna. [url=http://www.elperiodico.com/es/noticias/sucesos-y-tribunales/tres-muertos-caer-madrid-una-avioneta-que-habia-salido-sabadell-5013958]Three people died in one when a bird strike literally just ripped the wing off.[/url]

Large passenger jets can withstand regular bird strikes, maybe but that's because planes can generally fly even with extensive damage to the control surfaces and not because of bird proof design. The only parts tested with a chicken gun is the engine and sometimes windshields.

Now this is a bird, squishy chunk of meat, covered in feathery fluff. If one hits the engine then chances are either it just bounces around and goes out the back or the passenger starts smelling burnt dinner. Lets say it hits something else, like the windshield. [url=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32814946/o-BIRD-PLANE-facebook.jpg]Not pretty[/url]. We don't have thick ass windshield on unpressurized planes either so a bird hitting a cessna at 120kts is going to fuck things up real bad.

Now we're talking about drones, hard plastic, big metal bits and sometimes really tough carbon fibre. Not to mention the chances for a lithium fire or even explosions from the li-po batteries. Birds don't do that.

And its not our job to avoid drones, bird's maybe, but that because they're unpredictive fuckers who fly anywhere they like. Drones are flown by humans who can think and should know they're not supposed to be flying there to begin with. We're not going to initiate a go around just because some idiot's drone is there, fuck, you'd be too consumed on the landing the plane to even notice the drone to begin with.[/QUOTE]

I seriously doubt a phantom 3 could put that much damage threat to a 747.
I personally worked on these quadcopters and they're not very big and very easy to break and they're very fragile your TV is built more hardcore than these quads

[editline]19th April 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=cody8295;50151137]That would only disrupt new commands from the remote controller. If the drone has smart software that can be told to move to and hover at a certain place in the sky then an RF jammer wont do anything to it.

I can see drones with bombs or grenades on them causing problems soon[/QUOTE]

just know it would take a quadcopter inside that would be massive be easily picked up on radar to handle anything like that most of the weight on a quadcopter with batteries and that's just for a decent flight time to put something like a grenade a bomb on you would have to have a pretty big quad. 650+ size to even get off the ground and you're probably looking at maybe five minutes flight time

[editline]19th April 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=viperfan7;50152791]Problem with jamming the bands they are flown at is that its 2.4GHz for control and 5.0GHz for video

So you'd also be jamming wifi and bluetooth and a whole bunch of other things that run in the unregulated bands

[editline]17th April 2016[/editline]

Unless it gets sucked into a motor, a bird would get minced, and you'd have a flameout, a drone, well, it would break apart the primary and secondary compressor, throwing the balance off, and then explosion.

Whoever was flying thing thing was an absolute moron, you NEVER fly near airports, and you keep under 500 AGL everywhere else[/QUOTE]

do anything that could hurt that plan is possibly a lithium ion battery with the Drone uses for its power supply those things are not to be played with

[editline]19th April 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=pentium;50155128]The current system is not working. People are simply not listening or caring enough to be compliant. At that point you can either go full-nazi and make the regulations so bullshit it's just not worth the effort anymore or publically fuck a few people over to demonstrate that while you are given a large amount of freedom on where you can fly, do not think that it gives you the right to ignore whatever rules are currently in place.[/QUOTE]

that it's a new technology and they're trying to figure out how to regulate it there's all kinds of Rules and Things coming down the pipes because this is a brand-new technology and it's evolving rapidly fast and we all know it's hard to make a laws for things like this. and don't worry the FAA will kill this guy, nail to the wall with very heavy fines are possible jail time they do not f*** around it comes to damaging a aircraft. same thing if you were sitting there with a gun shooting that plane with a laser blinding the pilots.

[editline]19th April 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=Trumple;50155911]Do you have a source for that? To my knowledge, no other air collisions have happened with drones. I follow drone news quite actively as it's my hobby.[/QUOTE]

yes I believe this is the first documented case of a drone hitting a commercial aircraft there's only been sightings near airports and near misses

[Missing User]

Do you have a fucking lick of what you're talking about?

[quote]I seriously doubt a phantom 3 could put that much damage threat to a 747[/quote]

Engine ingestion. Big issues and damage to a 747. The blade tolerances on those engines is extremely small.

[quote]that it's a new technology and they're trying to figure out how to regulate it there's all kinds of Rules and Things coming down the pipes because this is a brand-new technology and it's evolving rapidly fast and we all know it's hard to make a laws for things like this. and don't worry the FAA will kill this guy, nail to the wall with very heavy fines are possible jail time they do not f*** around it comes to damaging a aircraft. same thing if you were sitting there with a gun shooting that plane with a laser blinding the pilots.[/quote]

1. This was in England and thus governed by the CAA.

2. Lasers are dangerous to pilots during the sterile cockpit.

3. You are the problem and why I am 100% glad the FAA is putting their foot down people like you's throats. You need the regulation. You need to be told no. You dont get to play in the major leagues with airplanes.

[Elspin]

[QUOTE=GunFox;50154141]"making an example" is effectively admitting that you are not treating an individual fairly. You are punishing them for the actions of others.

Any judge that makes an example of anyone needs to be fired immediately. It is an unacceptable abuse of the legal system.[/QUOTE]

True, but in this case I don't think tens of thousands of pounds is actually unreasonable, if anything, it should be much higher than that. If a plane taking off was forced to make an emergency landing right after leaving a runway from a major urban centre the resulting disaster could be enormous, a fair punishment would be quite extreme. I don't see this as the kind of thing you should just get a slap on the wrist for with the damage you could cause

[raz r23]

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50161332]Do you have a fucking lick of what you're talking about?

1. This was in England and thus governed by the CAA.

2. Lasers are dangerous to pilots during the sterile cockpit.

3. You are the problem and why I am 100% glad the FAA is putting their foot down people like you's throats. You need the regulation. You need to be told no. You dont get to play in the major leagues with airplanes.[/QUOTE]

Do you? you could break a DJI Phantom with your bare hands. they're made out of very light cheap Plastics the heaviest thing on a DJI Phantom are the motors and the battery. commercial Large aircraft are certified to be able to keep flying after impacting a 4-pound bird.

and I use the Boeing 747 as example obviously you don't know your aircraft. the 747 has 4 turbine engines. it needs two of these engines running to achieve flight.

Ok the FCC and the CAA are different entities and different governments but for the same actions. and yes they are struggling for rules on these new toys a pilot by the name of Tatty from Team Black Sheep recently flew in the UK 2012. he flew very close to very high important structures and at the time there was no law on the books for this.

I love your knee-jerk reaction to how it's my fault. I am in the Hobby and I have 3 custom quadcopters and I'm building a fourth one. you must be one of those idiots that think I'm out to spy on you in your backyard.

I did not fly my aircraft around large busy intersections, High foot traffic areas or by airports. I only fly in a big open field with safety equipment and flags to Mark positions. As well as GPS lock Landing locks and fpv headgear. and I never fly above altitudes of a hundred feet. there's always going to be someone who's going to fuck it up for everyone else why we have car accidents and it is getting to the point where people are being prosecuted for this kind of behavior.

[Missing User]

[QUOTE=raz r23;50161713]Do you? you could break a DJI Phantom with your bare hands. they're made out of very light cheap Plastics the heaviest thing on a DJI Phantom are the motors and the battery. commercial Large aircraft are certified to be able to keep flying after impacting a 4-pound bird.

and I use the Boeing 747 as example obviously you don't know your aircraft. the 747 has 4 turbine engines. it needs two of these engines running to achieve flight.

I love your knee-jerk reaction to how it's my fault. I am in the Hobby and I have 3 custom quadcopters and I'm building a fourth one. you must be one of those idiots that think I'm out to spy on you in your backyard.[/QUOTE]

Ingesting a lipo battery is not the same as a bird. Ingesting magnesium is not the same as a bird. Intentionally flying a UAS into the flight paths of airplanes is not the same as a bird. They are certified to [I]land[/I], not fly, after being hit [I]anywhere[/I] by a 4 pound bird. Thats incredibly easy to build for since the glide ratios of airplanes is incredible except when they were hit at low altitude and cannot continue. That does not mean that you do not do permanent damage to the aircraft or its power plant.

I'm not the idiot who thinks that, I'm the person who has to deal with you idiots flying your toys into the departure path and finals of commercial aircraft landing at a top 20 busiest airport in the US with a complexity score of 11/12. I'm the person who has a vested interest in airport security where I work as spots have been identified as likely terrorist attack locations.

I'm the person who is glad that UAS is getting the same treatment as anything else flying in the NAS. They need the regulation. They need guidance. We do not need drone regulations written in blood. The FAA is smarter than that.

[TCWilliamson]

The thing is, a bomb or explosive wouldn't be needed, all you would need is a cheap drone and an awkwardly sized or shaped billet of titanium or steel and you have yourself an engine-remover.

[Trumple]

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50162051]Ingesting a lipo battery is not the same as a bird. Ingesting magnesium is not the same as a bird. Intentionally flying a UAS into the flight paths of airplanes is not the same as a bird. They are certified to [I]land[/I], not fly, after being hit [I]anywhere[/I] by a 4 pound bird. Thats incredibly easy to build for since the glide ratios of airplanes is incredible except when they were hit at low altitude and cannot continue. That does not mean that you do not do permanent damage to the aircraft or its power plant.

I'm not the idiot who thinks that, I'm the person who has to deal with you idiots flying your toys into the departure path and finals of commercial aircraft landing at a top 20 busiest airport in the US with a complexity score of 11/12. I'm the person who has a vested interest in airport security where I work as spots have been identified as likely terrorist attack locations.

I'm the person who is glad that UAS is getting the same treatment as anything else flying in the NAS. They need the regulation. They need guidance. We do not need drone regulations written in blood. The FAA is smarter than that.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure raz hasn't actually flown near an airport. Most drone operators are sensible. You get a few idiots who get picked up by the news, but only a tiny majority.
Out of interest, how many idiots have you seen flying toys in your airport?

Drones need regulations, there's no doubting that. But this event happened in the UK, where we're governed by the CAA. The CAA's rules are some of the most mature in the world when it comes to "drones". They are more strict than those set out by the FAA, but what is surprising to me is that the FAA's rules are merely guidelines, not actual laws.

And yet despite the strict regulations we have in the UK, we get idiots who fly near airports. Like I said before, knowing the area and the hobby: this was deliberate. How do we deal with people with blatant disregard for the laws?