← Back to Squawk list

21

FAA research confirms what pilots deem as very real threat to planes

Aggiunto 3 anni fa

New research commissioned by the FAA finds a high-speed collision between a drone and an airliner would be worse than a bird strike. Newly-released animation shows how a drone could cause significant damage to a plane's engine or tail area. This year, the FAA has received an average of 250 reports of drones near airports every month, up from 159 for most of last year. (www.msn.com) Altro...

35 commenti dei membri

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

scott8733 3 anni fa 11

I really hope the FAA didn't spend a lot of money to ascertain what most of us in aviation already knew. Kind of like the NWS spending money to survey meteorologists to ask them what color the sun is.

Birds are softer, and likely have more brains than the average backyard drone operator. Note to all drone pilots- I'm just tossing in a little sarcastic humor to a serious topic, before y'all start moaning and groaning.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Report

Bernie20910 3 anni fa 9

Actually, I hope the FAA DID spend enough money on it to be certain of the answers it got. I also hope that the data is widely spread so that it can be referred to and cited. "Knowing" something "just because" isn't science. It's about time some real science came to this issue, with solid scientific facts to show.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

Kenneth Schmidt 3 anni fa 8

I was not going to moan about it since there is always a faction that does not follow the rules. It seems the prevalent trend, "the rules don't apply to me". I take the operation of my drone seriously, and where every I travel, check to make sure I am outside of the 5 nm area from an airport. There is also a greedy aspect to this, I cannot afford to replace a $2.100 drone because of stupidity.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

scott8733 3 anni fa 1

Ya for sure. I know based on previous participation you're one of the good guys. What's worrisome are the ones who don't believe rules apply and take advantage of their Amazon Prime accounts, as this technology's price points trend downward.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

RECOR10 3 anni fa -5

I would say to not be so mean to drone, then again, most of the Sheeple in the States are nothing but drones...

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

bentwing60 3 anni fa -4

That is why Toyota exists!

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

DAVID MCKIE 3 anni fa 7

I saw a good solution to drones that are a public nuisance!! We were duck hunting back in September and some dork kept buzzing our blind and decoys with a real nice drone. After the 3rd. pass, we took it out with 12 guage #6 shot. Never did see an operator. Not sure what the daily limit is on drones!!

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Report

Bernie20910 3 anni fa 4

You know what you did was illegal, right? And that if the drone operator saved the video it would be used as evidence against you. What the drone operator did wasn't right, but neither was your response to it.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

RECOR10 3 anni fa -1

First, you have no idea what the payload was, camera or not. Second, make sure you take out the camera too!!!! Good thing he had a gun, for all we know it had C4 attached to it and it was practice for a terror attack...prove it wasn't. Oh, you cant.

And if it was over private property...100% legal.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

Mark Lansdell 3 anni fa 2

I don't think that would pass in any court room which is where it would have to end up. I have read of wars starting over less than this. Unless you want regulations too voluminous to read operate drones with good sense. Leave hunters and guys with guns alone. They pay good money to hunt. Maybe more than you drone is worth. Unless you want the state to intervene and that's never good

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

DAVID MCKIE 3 anni fa 1

It was on my property, so I had every right to blast it. Worst part is we are adjacent to a local airport property and the dork flew across from the airport. So again all legal.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

Mark Lansdell 3 anni fa 3

I'm not sure about that. Where do your air rights and ownership begin and end. I'm not sure you own the air rights over your property. I don't in Maryland.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

RECOR10 3 anni fa -1

Where this gets interesting is all the news about "no drones over stadiums, crowds, public this and that" - so, one could with reason see a drone as an eminent threat (as according to all news stories pertaining to them). So, this will of course vary state to state - I do not however see a Texas jury siding with a drone owner....Kalifoniya? Sure, then again, they just let a murderer off (had he killed a walrus the verdict would have been quite different).

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

Bernie20910 3 anni fa 5

You might want to consider what the FAA said about it in April of 2016. That's when they stated that shooting down a drone is a federal crime with a potential 20-year sentence.

https://www.popsci.com/it-is-federal-crime-to-shoot-down-drone-says-faa

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/04/14/faa_confirms_it_s_a_federal_crime_to_shoot_down_a_drone.html

https://www.engadget.com/2016/04/18/faa-says-shooting-down-drones-is-a-federal-crime/

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

Dan Grelinger 3 anni fa 1

This FAA stance is possibly a small win, but definitely a big loss to drone operators. In order to be consistent with their attempts to legally control drone operators, the FAA has to classify them as aircraft. Which means that they can insist on airplane-like regulation of them. Registrations, tail numbers, and pilot licensing requirements are examples of what may come in the future.

Secondly, this FAA ruling is inconsistent with other legislation and those inconsistencies have not been worked out in the courts, primarily because law enforcement hesitates to charge people for shooting down drones that are at low altitude over their property. Many drone operators have had their drones shot down, but precious few have been able to do anything about it except complain.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

Randy Marco 3 anni fa 0

You can and I would civilly sue and would absolutely win.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

Dan Grelinger 3 anni fa 3

I've seen too many court cases to buy into "absolutely" anything.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

RECOR10 3 anni fa -2

You, Randy seem like a typical idiot libtard with no clue. I would shoot down a drone over my property in a second. Then, if the 'owner' came a-yellin, I would use the castle doctrine to then take care of the idiot. Far too many F-ing idiots who are simply clueless as to THEIR OWN rights...ignorant Sheeple.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

Randy Marco 3 anni fa 2

No one mentioned politics here except you.... but given you brought it up, you are a typical uneducated faux news repeater that is clueless about most everything including but not limited to law.

Since law is my field I would love to bring an action against you for shooting a drone and watch you begging like a little girl for a settlement just like Flynn, Manafort and ultimately trumpf et al.

Now go take your meds, your comments are obtuse.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

RECOR10 3 anni fa -4

LOL - typical lawyer. On the take like a leach.

We have a hard time treating your breed. Best was a night a local PI/Medal JD caught a DUI and expected us to facilitate his idiotic ideas...we treated him alright (we do of course give treatment to a normal standard for all PT's). Best part, not only did he want us to break the law, not abide by legislation, he then tried to make a claim against the facility for violating HIPAA!!!(he was summarily told to pound sand and we never heard another thing). He may have billboards and a name, but, local infamy does not mean you have any friends.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

RECOR10 3 anni fa 0

What gets a bit more fun, the FAA has rules...then again, so does the FCC...so, your device may be subject to interference....hell, we legally block WiFi devices in the hospital all the time. Now, as for police and their "Stinger" devices, I fully expect SCotUS to cry foul on them thanks to the new Justice, and common sense as pertaining to the Constitution.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

Randy Marco 3 anni fa 1

It is definitely NOT legal to shoot a drone down. You really need to get a grip on your paranoia, turning faux news off would be a start.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

Kenneth Schmidt 3 anni fa 4

Last week I was north of town looking to photograph the turkeys that hang out there. As luck would have it, they were right at the tree line. So I launched the drone and tried to sneak up on them, but the drone was too loud and they scattered into the woods before I got a shot. Now what would have happened if there were hunters beyond the tree line that I did not see and they had taken pot shots at my drone?

David, there are a number of legitimate reasons for a person to fly a drone, but you're giving license to fire at any one you see is unreasonable, and irresponsible.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

DAVID MCKIE 3 anni fa -2

The idiot wherever they where hiding knew we were there. We had been firing all morning. This had happened to a few other hunters. In your case if there were hunters around, they would have seen you harrassing wildlife and reported you. I would have shot it down.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

Kenneth Schmidt 3 anni fa 6

Reported me for what? Taking photographs on public land? I talked to the County Conservation Officer yesterday afternoon, there is no such law against it. You have no legal basis to go shooting down anything you don't like. Where will it end? A guy or gal with a camera around their neck? Are they also fair game?

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

scott8733 3 anni fa 0

There may be an opportunity for you to start a group titled 'Drones Unlimited', given that 'Ducks Unlimited' has done well, LOL

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

Jack Mabry 3 anni fa -2

Fantastic! Good on you.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

Ionfreefly 3 anni fa 2

A report doesn't mean it was actually a drone. For instance there were over 50 claims of drones in one year in the US that were all over 30K. A dji phantom or anything similar is not flying that high. The actual likelyhood of a collision is significantly less than a bird. I am so tired of the agenda against evil drones when the reality is I have been flying them for over 20 years at clubs near airports without a single incident; but they have only recently been put into the publics eyes so everyone is freaking out now...

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Report

RECOR10 3 anni fa -3

Sir, please do NOT let rumor, innuendo and hysteria get into the way of the realities proported by the 'Fake' News...now, back to my Sheeple to graze on some Soylent Green....

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

Randy Marco 3 anni fa 0

Nice to see you admit you are sheeple.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

RECOR10 3 anni fa 0

I am nothing if not compliant. Thank you sir, may I have another? ;-)

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

bentwing60 3 anni fa 0

I suspect that you Sir will never be part of the problem, nor will your contemporaries. Drive the friendly traffic of Dallas these days and you quickly realize that the zanies now rule the roads and those of us that have insurance and drive defensively are more defensive than ever. I got green lasered going into DAL several years back in the left seat of a C650 on a left base to 13L. Hostile territory below. They buy drones too. And they will be much tougher on the fan and compressor section of a TFE731 than a 2.5 pound dove. Just sayin.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

Dan Grelinger 3 anni fa 0

Using your logic, my friend who has been driving drunk for the past 20 years without causing an accident is justified in his assertions that drunk driving is really OK and people should just leave him alone. Sounds flawed to me.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

RECOR10 3 anni fa -3

Dont even get me started on the ignorance of MADD and the law enforcement idiots why buy into it.

Before you ask, yes I have seen the 'other side'. Working in the L1 trauma center we get plenty of DUI cases. None, I mean NONE of them are .08. In reality they are almost all .2x and above. The real issue is elderly drivers. Far more dangerous than some housewife with a glass of Pinot in her gullet. But, that is not an exciting story.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Superiore•Report

Peter Steitz 3 anni fa 1

I have hit several birds in my 50 years of flying. We have TCAS and radar but neither will detect a drone or bird. One poor falcon I hit was from behind and he just didn't see or hear me. Blood all over the windscreen. Feathers still stuck in the tail.

I have seen others that folded wings and dove down to miss me. Sully on the Hudson was a once in a lifetime occurrence where they encountered too many at one time and in both engines.

The last thing we aviators need are more uncontrolled objects in the sky. You drone "operators" are a real threat. Most of you are not aviators and have no idea what the Hell you are doing.

Get a private, commercial and instrument rating. Then, fly your drone no higher than about 150 feet.

Rispondi ↓•Permalink•Report

Accedi

Questo sito web utilizza cookie. Continuando a usare e a navigare su questo sito, accetti l'utilizzo dei cookie.

Chiudi

Sapevi che il tracking dei voli di FlightAware è supportato dalla pubblicità?

Puoi aiutarci a mantenere FlightAware gratuito accettando gli annunci pubblicitari di FlightAware.com. Ci impegniamo per far sì che i nostri annunci siano pertinenti e discreti per offrire la migliore esperienza. Aggiungere gli annunci ammessi su FlightAware è facile e veloce oppure puoi prendere in considerazione i nostri account premium.

Chiudi