Tümü
← Back to Squawk list
Stop the Drone Panic - Pilots Should Take Their Own Advice
For an industry that’s usually obsessed with “risk management,” aviation sure isn’t using much of it when it comes to drones. The constant drumbeat of stories about close encounters between airplanes and unmanned aerial systems (UAS) can be described as nothing short of a panic, with pilots and non-pilots alike convinced that a drone disaster is looming. (sportysnetwork.com) Daha Fazlası...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
While you can't regulate birds and yes, pilots have had close encounters with each other on the airport itself. Some their fault others due to ATC, and there have been mid-air collisions and near misses. It's hard to get my head around the mixing of properly lcenced operators of aircraft and to a large degree, those infintile maniacs seeking a thrill with their new "airborne toy" with zero thought process.
I've been saying that us pilots must not recall the knee jerk regulations that were discussed after 9/11. Most if them were ridiculously restrictive with no reasonable benefit, nothing but a pure power grab. Anyone, remember having to reassure somebody that a rogue C172 wasn't a threat to anything but tents and the plane itself?
The same thing is happening to rc pilots now. We've all been sharing the same atmosphere for decades without a problem. Yes, I realize that quadcopters are are cheaper every day. To be honest I think that will end up being the solution. Simply put the novelty will wear off. Everyone who buys one will feel that urge to get video from the crafts service ceiling, some will follow through. Just like some with new Mustangs can't resist the urge to lose control of their vehicle in front of onlookers.
Already there is some anecdotal evidence that we may be over the pop culture buzz. 3dr layoffs, fewer ebay listings for new items, more Craigslist ads for "slightly used" drones. There just aren't many people who are going to buy a high end drone then risk it flying away near an airport. Maybe that's why these "dangerous encounters" seem to happen in multiples near the same airport/runway.
The FAA really needs to focus on safely integrating commercial operations. The number of small consumer drone sightings near aircraft are an almost insignificant percentage of the total number sold. With the media throwing fuel on the fire the FAA is surely feeling pressured to "fix" the small drone problem, now they are discovering how difficult out is to fix something that doesn't exist. Meanwhile innovators, investors and dreamers are watching their ideas come to fruition in other countries.
The same thing is happening to rc pilots now. We've all been sharing the same atmosphere for decades without a problem. Yes, I realize that quadcopters are are cheaper every day. To be honest I think that will end up being the solution. Simply put the novelty will wear off. Everyone who buys one will feel that urge to get video from the crafts service ceiling, some will follow through. Just like some with new Mustangs can't resist the urge to lose control of their vehicle in front of onlookers.
Already there is some anecdotal evidence that we may be over the pop culture buzz. 3dr layoffs, fewer ebay listings for new items, more Craigslist ads for "slightly used" drones. There just aren't many people who are going to buy a high end drone then risk it flying away near an airport. Maybe that's why these "dangerous encounters" seem to happen in multiples near the same airport/runway.
The FAA really needs to focus on safely integrating commercial operations. The number of small consumer drone sightings near aircraft are an almost insignificant percentage of the total number sold. With the media throwing fuel on the fire the FAA is surely feeling pressured to "fix" the small drone problem, now they are discovering how difficult out is to fix something that doesn't exist. Meanwhile innovators, investors and dreamers are watching their ideas come to fruition in other countries.
I'm curious as to just how much of a danger a drone strike really would be to an aircraft. Certainly this is something where size does matter, especially relative size in the case of smaller aircraft, but where does the "danger line" really lie? FAA seems to have set the bar at just over a half pound with their requirement that anything over must be registered, but is that a realistic number?
There are so many factors involved besides size and weight of the drone itself, such as what it's made of and what payload it might be carrying, how certain can we be that the right limits are being set?
There are so many factors involved besides size and weight of the drone itself, such as what it's made of and what payload it might be carrying, how certain can we be that the right limits are being set?
Agreed with that last statement! We assume people innocently taking pictures etc.. My crystal ball says wait until ISIS or their sympathizers take this a step beyond what a normal person thinks about now. We will later be here writing our thoughts on why no one did anything or why "government" didn't see attacks like this coming.
(trying to not sound like gloomy Gus)
(trying to not sound like gloomy Gus)
Interesting point, however I would be more inclined to worry about a strike to the radome which is fairly fragile or a strike to the leading edge of the wing causing a slat issue. Windshields these days are heated and can sustain quite a blow without being compromised and you can even lose a winglet and still have control. The underlying issue to me is having to share the same airspace without knowing intentions or having communication with a UAV a time when all the focus should be elsewhere.
You mean payloads like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjG1n9FEDb0
Exactly, it's not the drone that causes the damage to an aircraft in flight, it's what it may be carrying underneath. Now granted most Quad copter drivers don't normally arm their drone with much more than a HD camera but even that getting hit at 200 mph might do significant damage.
Some of the larger cameras, sure, but then you're getting pretty high in the price range of these things and I believe people are less likely to risk a $1,500 or $2,000 investment, whereas the less expensive models with "HD capability, such as the $450 one I have, are mostly lightweight plastic with a fiberglass or carbon fibre "spar" type frame, tiny motors (AA battery sized), cameras that are internal and little more than a small circuit board and tiny lens, or external but still just a plastic housing, larger circuit board and antenna for the live feed transmitter, and a small battery. Hitting it at any fling speed is going to have about the same effect as an Abrams tank hitting an empty beer can. So that's why I'm wondering if the right limits are being set. Yes, weight should be one of the factors, but I don't think just saying "anything above x weight is restricted". I think the actual capabilities of the model itself need to be taken into consideration. Perhaps a system of classification that puts greater restrictions on the larger, heavier, more capable models, and relaxes some restrictions on the lighter, less capable models that still require registration.
Just my current thoughts on this, subject to change of course.
Just my current thoughts on this, subject to change of course.
