back to article Brit airline pilots warn of drone menace

The British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) has demanded action to control the use of drones following "a spate of serious near misses" over UK airports. The latest UK Airprox Board report (PDF) describes seven incidents involving drones, of which four fell into the most serious category A, "where a serious risk of …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

    for when your toy downs an aircraft and the lawyers come at you a force this is akin to the barrage that was the prelude to the D-Day landings.

    1. theModge

      Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

      Not really: Suppose I bring a plane down with a drone. I have some modest personal savings (actually modest, I quit the real world to be a PhD student) and a car to my name. No house. No millions of pounds worth of assets. The most compensation they can get out of me wouldn't cover an entire day of airline legal team time. They'd go for the drone manufacturer, who say the instructions told him not to do it.

      On the other hand, the police would, hopefully, have me behind bars for a plane full of manslaughter charges, so even leaving aside morals it's still probably best avoided.

      1. Adam 52 Silver badge

        Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

        Why manslaughter? The vast majority of UK airspace is class G "see and avoid". That responsiblity goes both ways.

        1. Chris Parsons

          Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

          If you're a pilot - I am - I seriously suggest you reread your Air Law books. Apart from anything else, most airspace around airports is Class A, and as I look at my chart of Southern England, I don't see an awful lot of uncontrolled airspace.

      2. James 47

        Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

        Are you tripping balls pal?

        1. Adam 52 Silver badge

          Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

          Might I suggest reading up on the law -http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#manslaughter

          Manslaughter requires a duty of care, gross negligence *and* an unlawful act. In the hypothetical situation proposed there's only one of these not all three.

          Might also be worth learning some basic aviation law principles and studying an airspace map, too many assume that airports have a monopoly on their approach and departure routes and it just isn't true (although there's a lot more class D than there used to be).

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

            too many assume that airports have a monopoly on their approach and departure routes and it just isn't true (although there's a lot more class D than there used to be).

            But we have from reckless endangerment all the way to pre-meditated murder to use when a plane goes down due to a drone. It's not like it's a secret that flying a drone in a flightpath with nice sucking jet engines is not one of the smartest things to do now, is it? Heck, given the potential carnage you better don't do that with a suntan and a beard or you may end up with terrorist charges instead.

            If you get nabbed for flying a drone near an airport I won't feel sorry for you. As a matter of fact, if I see you I may even entertain myself by reporting you. And if I've just landed myself and I find it was your drone in my flight path there would possibly be no further need for a trial as I suspect disassembled lithium batteries and bits of drone and anal tracts don't mix.

            1. Adam 52 Silver badge

              Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

              I'm guessing that you're an American, we don't have "reckless endangerment" in England and Wales. I know you tend to assume that your laws apply worldwide but that isn't the case.

              Sure, if it does happen the baying mob would force the CPS into applying the "ways and means act". And the crowd pleasing politicians would stir the fire and play on the victim's deaths. As someone who likes to cling on to the fantasy of rule of law I find that disappointing.

              Not condoning reckless flying of drones near airports. It'd be stupid and criminal tofly in an ATZ and some controlled airspace. But the London CTA covers a millions of people's back gardens, it's unreasonable for BALPA to want me to keep out of my own garden. Similarly my back garden is on the approach to Luton and is class G. I should be able to fly in my garden because anything going into Luton should be at least 3000ft above me.

              I have been on airline training courses where they teach the pilots to concentrate on instruments when flying approaches. That's awful airmanship. Class G is see and avoid and too often the airlines assume right of way because they're big. The responsibility for avoiding collision is shared equally on both parties. In a crash because the pilots were heads-in it'd be the pilots at fault. It's the same mentality that causes bus and HGV drivers to mow down cyclists and motorcyclists.

              We're moving more towards controlled airspace for airline routes. Whilst that's probably safer it cuts off a huge amount of England from GA and sport aviation traffic.

              1. This post has been deleted by its author

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

                I'm guessing that you're an American, we don't have "reckless endangerment" in England and Wales. I know you tend to assume that your laws apply worldwide but that isn't the case.

                Well, you know what an assumption makes of you - as you are wrong (not a US citizen, and definitely never going to be one). The challenge I have is that I travel, so I have to deal with numerous legal frameworks, each with their own little quirks ranging from "oh, that's not illegal here" (downloading movies in Switzerland) to "we'll publicly whip the skin off your back" (dropping a chewing gum in Singapore) but on Friday's I'm not going to work too hard at satisfying people who focus on detail to avoid the substance of a discussion.

                The point I was making was that there are always framework laws to catch idiots endangering others by the blatant stupidity of their actions, and people operating drones near an airfield certainly fall in that category ("idiots", just in case you lost track). If you want to argue that some *may* indeed know what they're doing, well, they would not be near the airfield other than with solid permission and usually with a link to ground control to ensure they can also be kept out of the way in case of emergencies (an airport readying itself for an emergency CERTAINLY is not the place to f*ck around with dangerous toys hoping to sell images for big bucks).

                I would personally have no problem with anyone declaring the unauthorised/uncleared use of drones near air traffic as equivalent to an act of terrorism. If you consider that harsh I'd keep in mind that you are playing with the lives of hundreds of people in one go, those in the planes up there as well as those left behind when it all goes wrong. Real life doesn't have an undo button.

                too often the airlines assume right of way because they're big. The responsibility for avoiding collision is shared equally on both parties. In a crash because the pilots were heads-in it'd be the pilots at fault. It's the same mentality that causes bus and HGV drivers to mow down cyclists and motorcyclists.

                So, your argument is that a pilot who is on a controlled, carefully planned, mandated and predictable trajectory with quite a few tonnes of machinery and passengers should seek to evade your toy because he'd be otherwise be bullying you? They would be at fault when one of these toys gets sucking into an engine because they suddenly have a "shared responsibility" avoiding a collision with something that should not even *be* there? Really?

                Wow. Did you by any chance inhale some of that printer toner that Alistiar Dabbs was talking about?

                1. Roo
                  Windows

                  Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

                  "So, your argument is that a pilot who is on a controlled, carefully planned, mandated and predictable trajectory with quite a few tonnes of machinery and passengers should seek to evade your toy because he'd be otherwise be bullying you?"

                  I read his argument as being the Pilots should be paying attention to the skies as well as the instruments in class G airspace, which seems reasonable given that other planes (which may be off course due to stupidity, incompetence or plain old error) and birds might be occupying the same bit of sky too.

                  Here's an example of why pilots of fast moving jet aircraft should be paying attention to what is going on outside the windows (from 1993):

                  "A HELICOPTER pilot and his passenger were killed yesterday in a mid-air collision with an RAF Tornado that was on a long-range, low-flying exercise in Cumbria.

                  The crash happened a few hundred yards from junction 36 of the M6 at Farleton near Kirkby Londsdale. The helicopter is thought to have had its rear rotary blade ripped off before bursting into flames on farmland.

                  The crew of the Tornado were apparently unaware they had hit the helicopter. They lost all power in one engine and reported they had been hit by a flock of birds."

                  I picked that one because it reminded me of the pair of Tornados flying line astern with a couple of hundred yards between them missing our roof by ~20ft having clipped 3ft off a 60ft high tree just 100 yards away. We didn't panic because we didn't have time, I suspect the pilots didn't have time to panic either.

                  1. x 7 Silver badge

                    Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

                    The Tarleton helicopter crash isn't really a good example.

                    It was due to a combination of a low-level high speed military aircraft, and a helicopter at low level doing an electricity pylon survey. Due to the ground contours, the low levels and the aircraft attitudes both were in each others blind spots. But even if the Tornado pilot had seen the helicopter, at that speed and level there probably would not have been time to take avoiding action.

                    The real cause was the fact that a civilian aircraft was at low level in a military low flying zone, on a flying day. The only thing that could have stopped the crash was a warning to the military by the helicopter inspection team that they intended to be there that day, so enabling the Tornado to reroute.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

                      Well, yes, but this is the second time that an attempt was made to avoid the substance of the problem. That drone should not be there. It has no business being inside an environment where planes are trying to perform one of the most dangerous manoeuvres of a flight, landing.

                      You can't expect a landing plane to start planning for possible evasive action because some w*nker thinks having a toy automatically comes with the right to endanger people.

                      Even for the most jaded idiot it is not hard to work out why, and anyone bringing a drone into the flight path regardless is in my opinion welcome to fines that reflect their wilful disregard for the lives of those they so endanger. If said drone gets sucked into an engine or otherwise causes the plane to crash, that should be dealt as somewhere between involuntary manslaughter and mass murder with intent depending on circumstances.

                      Airports and surrounding air corridors should be declared drone free zones, with mandatory jail sentences for people thinking they know better (mandatory jail ensures also the rich kids can't buy their way out of stupidity - anyone trying to use the "affluenza" defence are telling me that they really ought to be permanently locked up in a nice padded room with lost of fun medicine to stop them from further endangering society).

                    2. werdsmith Silver badge

                      Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

                      "The only thing that could have stopped the crash was a warning to the military by the helicopter inspection team that they intended to be there that day, so enabling the Tornado to reroute."

                      Or the military pilot could have just read the NOTAMs that morning and would have been aware and known when and where to expect low flying helicopters to be in the way.

                      1. x 7 Silver badge

                        Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

                        "NOTAMs"

                        thats the very point........my memory is shaky (its several years since I read the report) but my belief is that there wasn't a NOTAM that day

                        1. x 7 Silver badge

                          Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

                          Just found online the summary of the report of the Farleton crash

                          As I thought, there was no notification process in place to advise the military of the presence of the helicopter (which was on a pipeline inspection - not pylons)

                          http://bit.ly/1NMxeb9 -summary report

                          http://bit.ly/1TxmpB2 -full report

                          1. x 7 Silver badge

                            Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

                            just rereading that full report, and theres some interesting stuff there

                            first they say that to have had a chance to see the JetRanger, the Tornado pilot would have had to be sweeping his head left-right every five seconds, at the same time trying to avoid sightline blocks. On a multi-hour flight, not practical

                            Secondly, the JetRanger would have remained invisible to the Tornado until at earliest 17 seconds before impact. - and more probably just 5 seconds

                            So, if something the size of a JetRanger is damned invisible until its too late to take action, what chance has a pilot of seeing and reacting to a small drone in front of him?

                            All those who are saying its up to the pilot to see and avoid the drone are nothing short of stupid idiots

                            1. Roo
                              Windows

                              Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

                              "So, if something the size of a JetRanger is damned invisible until its too late to take action, what chance has a pilot of seeing and reacting to a small drone in front of him?"

                              I don't think you can make that argument given that the JetRanger wasn't invisible to the eyeball or the radar carried by the Tornados. It wasn't seen because the Tornado was flying low and very fast, neither aircrew had any chance of reacting in time.

                              1. x 7 Silver badge

                                Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

                                1) The Tornado was a GR1. NO air-to-air radar. The radar fit is ground imaging only

                                2) The report clearly says that the JetRanger would not have been visible to the Tornado crew until AT MOST 17 seconds before impact. In reality probably 5 seconds. That assumes the pilot wasn't having to look at altimeter data, change radio settings, change engine thrust or one of a myriad other tasks which would have taken his eyes in the wrong direction. In this particular case he was worried that the other Tornado in the formation was on the other side of Tarleton Fell, and the two were likely to be on a collision course when they reached the north end of the fell. His concentration would have been set on that potential impact. In reality whats five seconds? Head down, head up, bang you're dead.

                                Read the report. Its all in there. Along with the fact that the helicopter company had found the reporting advisory scheme unworkable so had abandoned it - so the military had no knowledge of the helicopters presence. So whose blame was it?

                                Read the report before you post again. So at least if you want to spout bullshit, at least its informed bullshit.

                                1. x 7 Silver badge

                                  Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

                                  sorry I keep typing Tarleton.........of course its Farleton

                                2. Roo
                                  Windows

                                  Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

                                  "Read the report. Its all in there. Along with the fact that the helicopter company had found the reporting advisory scheme unworkable so had abandoned it - so the military had no knowledge of the helicopters presence. So whose blame was it?"

                                  The report stated that the (widely) "abandoned" scheme was unfit for purpose and one specific to pipeline inspection was created (PINS) as a result of the accident.

                                  Try turning the problem around and looking at it from the Helicopter crew's point of view. There was nothing more they could do to tell the Tornado crew what they were doing (they kept ATC informed), and there was nothing that the Tornado crew did (or could) do to warn the Helicopter crew they were in the area (in real-time).

                                  I am not saying the Tornado crew did anything wrong, but the accident does illustrate that an aircrew that is not engaged with ATC and not paying enough attention to what's going on outside the cockpit is just as much a problem as a numpty drone operator. I did witness a number of near misses between Fast Jets on low-level exercises - it was a known problem long before Farleton.

                            2. Anonymous Coward
                              Anonymous Coward

                              Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

                              All those who are saying its up to the pilot to see and avoid the drone are nothing short of stupid idiots

                              Well, yes, but we knew that already :)

                    3. Roo
                      Windows

                      Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

                      "The real cause was the fact that a civilian aircraft was at low level in a military low flying zone, on a flying day. The only thing that could have stopped the crash was a warning to the military by the helicopter inspection team that they intended to be there that day, so enabling the Tornado to reroute."

                      The Tornado was reported to be *off-course*, so there's a good chance they wouldn't have followed the new route in any case.

                      1. x 7 Silver badge

                        Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

                        "The Tornado was reported to be *off-course*"

                        No such concept as "off course" on a military flying exercise. They have a start point and a destination. There are certain areas which are off-bounds such as big cities. Otherwise at low level they have free reign to go wherever seems best at the time. In this case, one Tornado went west of Farleton Fell, one east. No issues, thats how things work. At the time it was a regular sight. Nowadays they tend to take a more challenging path up the Lune Valley and Lune Gorge, but that's because there are fewer aircraft flying so they can all take the difficult route.

                        In this particular case, they were following a slightly different route and time path than originally intended because Tornado #2 was unable to use its bombing slot at Donna Nook due to conflicting aircraft, so they rerouted to drop some bombs in Scotland instead.

                2. Vic

                  Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

                  I would personally have no problem with anyone declaring the unauthorised/uncleared use of drones near air traffic as equivalent to an act of terrorism

                  I would.

                  Hoever reckless/idiotic/dangerous it might be to fly a drone near an airfield, it's not an act of coercion, and therefore clearly not terrorism.

                  The problem with using the word to describe everything you don't like is that pretty soon, you cannot differentiate between terrorism and any other sort of law-breaking. Before you know it, all those anti-terror laws become pertinent to day-to-day problems...

                  Vic.

              3. Avatar of They Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance

                I think the key phrase is "responsibility to avoid collision." typically a jet plane can't "just swerve" to avoid anything. Especially on approach. So all forms of support will be to the airline pilot I would think.

                And I think bringing a plane down with a drone will be a "set an example" type case. The first will be the last with probably domestic terrorism attached (easy to see in current climate) and there won't be much in defence for the drone pilot. Class G or not only a buffoon would assume a plane at that speed and that size can avoid a small light weight white thing, and even if trying to avoid it what else would they hit?

                "Sorry the pilot should have seen my 1kg drone at over a 100 miles an hour and avoided it guv!" I don't think would be anything that washes in a court packed with 300 grieving families.

          2. Intractable Potsherd

            Re: I hope you drone pilots have decent insurance @Adam52

            Sorry, Adam; you have identified only one type of manslaughter (gross negligence manslaughter). There are others, and simply being reckless (not having regard for the dangers of the actions) would be sufficient to get charged. It is always open to the jury to decide that the charge doesn't stick, so conviction isn't certain, but the defendant would have to have a *very* good defence team to show that flying a drone on the approach to an airport wasn't reckless.

  2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

    Registration will not help

    Frankly, the only way of policing them is to patrol with other drones and jam from point blank range (so you can overwhelm any form of remote control including mobile). Failing that follow the violator until you are over an area where you can safely shoot them and shoot them.

    Nothing else like registration, etc will help. That horse has already bolted.

    1. Lysenko Silver badge

      Re: Registration will not help

      Typical drones use 2.4GHz. Shooting one down with a directional antenna is trivial and harmless to regular aircraft.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Registration will not help

        Shooting one down with a directional antenna is trivial and harmless to regular aircraft.

        I presume you mean jamming it? That may trigger the "go home" routine, which may actually lead it across the very flightpath you're trying to keep clear.

        I'd use that directional antenna in reverse and find whoever needs percussive education - much more productive. I suspect that breaking bits off the right person is more likely to prevent repeat offending than breaking bits off the drone - the parts are harder to replace.

      2. DropBear Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Registration will not help

        And what will you be transmitting - ultra-wide-band noise? My 10cm-wide "don't take it outside unless you're crazy" nano-drone theoretically operating at "2.4GHz" skips around 16 different frequencies many times each second (exactly to help with interference) - and which exactly those are is randomized every time I turn on the transmitter...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Registration will not help

          And what will you be transmitting - ultra-wide-band noise? My 10cm-wide "don't take it outside unless you're crazy" nano-drone theoretically operating at "2.4GHz" skips around 16 different frequencies many times each second (exactly to help with interference) - and which exactly those are is randomized every time I turn on the transmitter...

          All I have to do is push out a couple of Watts worth of power on those frequencies with a directional antenna and your controller won't be able to get through. I don't need a signal that makes sense, all I need is to remove your control by flooding the receiver.

          However, as I said before, that idea has its own risk, depending on how the targeted drone is set up it either freezes in position until power runs out, or I may trigger a "return to base" routine that may very well lead it exactly in or across the very flight path I'm trying to clear. I much prefer to use that directional antenna to find the controller and deal with the issue in a more permanent way.

          1. Rabbit80

            Re: Registration will not help

            "However, as I said before, that idea has its own risk, depending on how the targeted drone is set up it either freezes in position until power runs out, or I may trigger a "return to base" routine that may very well lead it exactly in or across the very flight path I'm trying to clear. I much prefer to use that directional antenna to find the controller and deal with the issue in a more permanent way."

            Or, the drone may continue on it's predetermined flight path, may act erratically as its control bands are confused or in the case of my 250 quad (as factory configured, not how I have it set now) would keep doing whatever the controls were set at before it lost contact! Radio jamming is a stupid idea with more potential for disaster than just leaving it alone!

          2. Vic

            Re: Registration will not help

            All I have to do is push out a couple of Watts worth of power on those frequencies with a directional antenna and your controller won't be able to get through

            That depends on the kit in question...

            Spread-spectrum transmission has many benefits, including resistance to jamming. That, coupled with its being usable with levels below the noise floor, made it very useful during the war...

            Vic.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Registration will not help

              Spread-spectrum transmission has many benefits, including resistance to jamming. That, coupled with its being usable with levels below the noise floor, made it very useful during the war...

              The chances of a cheap idiot drone being flown with spread spectrum control tech are IMHO exceptionally low, most of these drones fly on channels in the 2.4 GHz region which are easy to flood.

              Otherwise, maybe it's time to start training some more eagles :).

      3. JamesPond
        FAIL

        Re: Registration will not help

        "Typical drones use 2.4GHz. Shooting one down with a directional antenna is trivial and harmless to regular aircraft."

        But not harmless to the poor sod on the ground who's head it drops on from 2000ft

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    BALPA? Coincidently I have a pair of British Sugar Corporation Gilbert-and-Sullivan Society cuff-links.

  4. cd

    Surprised someone hasn't mounted a rotating green laser pointer on one yet. Consider how much damage such a simple thing could bring.

    1. werdsmith Silver badge

      "Surprised someone hasn't mounted a rotating green laser pointer on one yet. Consider how much damage such a simple thing could bring."

      Should make the drone much easier to see and provide some useful warning for pilots to avoid it.

      A rotating beam is much less harmful than a constant one maintained on the retina.

  5. Tom_

    How bad?

    How bad is it likely to be if a passenger jet hits a drone? Don't they test those jets by firing frozen turkeys into the engines?

    1. frank ly Silver badge

      Re: How bad?

      Not frozen, no.

    2. Nolveys Silver badge

      Re: How bad?

      Don't they test those jets by firing frozen turkeys into the engines?

      That's how they test to see if anyone remembered to thaw the turkey.

      1. Triggerfish

        Re: How bad?

        Considering my landing last week consisted of a go around due to winds, and a following landing where the pilot really used all the runway and got a cheer. I'm rather glad he wasn't distracted by something going crunch in the engine or on the cockpit glass.

        1. Rafael 1

          Re: How bad?

          I don't know why the OP was downvoted, and I bet he is not advocating reckless use of drones near airports.

          I have the same question. I guess it would be bad if it enters the turbine, but how bad would that be? And if it hit the cockpit? Any differences if the hit was when the plane was approaching landing?

          Wonder if this is a good what-if to ask Randall Munroe.

          1. Triggerfish

            Re: How bad?

            No it's a fair question.

            To be honest I don't know. You have the inner turbine blades that are strong in some ways but can shatter, design that try and prevents things from getting to them, including how the airflows I think. Plus general plane design to allow a pilot to fly on one engine for example. Hard crunchy components from a drone don't know how different that may be from a bird strike, bird bones might not be as tough.

            But you also have murphys law, you can design as much as you like but you don't actually want it to happen because every time several bits of things randomly hit an engine you can only model to a certain degree the parts paths they would take, every times different maybe one day its hits that thing and does damage no one expected.

            I say in essence emergency features are for emergencies and in practice you work to avoid the instances when they occur before they can occur.

            I would still say the distraction value can be critical as well I was not joking about that landing, the pilot pulled a sharp banking climbing turn above manchester on the pull out, I can't think there's a time there were you want him paying attention to anything other than flying.

            1. Stoneshop Silver badge

              Re: How bad?

              But you also have murphys law, you can design as much as you like but you don't actually want it to happen because every time several bits of things randomly hit an engine you can only model to a certain degree the parts paths they would take, every times different maybe one day its hits that thing and does damage no one expected.

              Indeed. And as United 232 showed, Murohy on his own can nearly down a plane*; you don't want some idiot with a drone helping him.

              * They were both lucky and crafty, giving Murphy the finger, and it only ended like it did because 20 feet above the runway their luck ran out.

          2. Stoneshop Silver badge
            Boffin

            Re: How bad?

            Wonder if this is a good what-if to ask Randall Munroe.

            He does the serious answers to absurd hypothetical questions. This particular problem is far from hypothetical; now maybe if 'What If' would be extended to absurd answers to serious questions would this one be elegible, by for instance suggesting airliners could be fitted with an airbag-like cover with a proximity trigger. There'll be a whole slew of calculations involved like how thick the bag would have to be to keep the average drone from doing damage to the plane itself, and ways to mitigate side-effects like sudden loss of visual on final and the changes in aerodynamic behaviour, so that would make this something right up his alley.

      2. Pete4000uk

        Re: How bad?

        Or a poor cat, as what happened once when a moggy went into the cannon after some fresh meat during the lunch time..

    3. John Robson Silver badge

      Re: How bad?

      The motors on the drone are rather more solid than any single bit of a turkey.

      Whether they are solid enough to shatter a turbine blade every time, or just one in a hundred, is not a question I want answered in the air, but on a test bed:

      YouTube

    4. This post has been deleted by its author

  6. Marketing Hack Silver badge
    Stop

    I guess its kind of nice to see that this idiocy is not restricted to the U.S.

    I'd hate to see a couple hundred people get killed because some hobbyist couldn't keep their drone away from flight paths.

    1. Mark 65 Silver badge

      Re: I guess its kind of nice to see that this idiocy is not restricted to the U.S.

      I'm not keen on the way DJI is putting all sorts of restrictions into its auto pilot / control computer but it appears there are just a few too many idiots spoiling things for the rest of the fraternity.

  7. YARR

    Aside from introducing more drone-conian regulations, perhaps some practical solutions are in order? How about putting up warning notices on all open areas of public ground from which someone could inadvertently fly a drone into the flightpath of an aircraft?

    I thought that most drones capable of flying that range would have a programmable altitude ceiling, or require you to specify one as part of the set up process. Any responsible manufacturer of such drones ought to supply clear instructions of where to find the regulations for flying drones in your country. Of course that sort of information is liable to be lost if the drone is sold on, so perhaps a permanent label should be be fixed to such drones with a message like "Observe flight regulations for your country at <short url> before use".

    1. kwyj

      "I thought that most drones capable of flying that range would have a programmable altitude ceiling"

      Mine (a DJI phantom 3) does and I've set it to 400 feet which is the maximum I'm allowed to fly in my area. The manufacturer even inserted a brochure from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority here in Australia in the packaging to make sure owners are aware of their responsibilities. (There is also other guidance about distances from people, vehicles, buildings etc)

      There was a news report here yesterday of a flight between Moorabin and Melbourne having to dodge one of these idiots. I can't see any excuse for it.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      How about putting up warning notices on all open areas of public ground from which someone could inadvertently fly a drone into the flightpath of an aircraft?

      Here is an exercise: drive around an airport and see just how many signs stating the obvious you'd need. Besides, if you start that, where would you stop? Please give priority on this road or you could get killed? Discharging firearms may harm your defence? Please slow down on this parking lot or use screen wipers: possible risk of pedestrians young and old?

      I *would* pass a draconian law and then start rounding up those idiots one by one. I reckon it'll take a month or two before even the dumb ones catch on that even having the thing ready to fly in the car is a bad idea near the airport.

      1. Triggerfish

        We need a general sign. Something just along the line of "Try and think" or "Look, just don't be an idiot.".

        1. Ledswinger Silver badge

          We need a general sign.

          Nope. We need good practical penalties that the hard of thinking (or hard of consideration) could understand. Like the confiscation of inappropriately flown drones, and said drone being broken up before the pieces are publicly stuffed up the errant operator's arse. You'd have to insert about four drones up bottoms before the message got through, but I reckon that'd cut the number of mis-flown drones by an order of magnitude, in a way that neither fines nor imprisonment would.

          We could do the same for drivers on mobile phones (except me, this last Friday, because rules ALWAYS apply to other people).

        2. Fink-Nottle

          > We need a general sign. Something just along the line of "Try and think" or "Look, just don't be an idiot.".

          "Teenagers Prohibited"

    3. Rabbit80

      "I thought that most drones capable of flying that range would have a programmable altitude ceiling, or require you to specify one as part of the set up process. "

      My 250 racing quad has a range of over a mile (supposedly according to the instructions, never flown it out of line of sight). No fancy GPS, altimeter etc either on it either - just the essentials to give it raw power and transmit the signal from the FPV camera.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's hard to see how compulsory registration and insurance would make any difference to the actual problem of collision.

    Like a lot of regulations, they just create a load of new criminals.

    That a person was properly registered and had insurance will be small consolation to the relatives of the dead if such a thing occurred in reality.

    As far as I can see, causing the crash of a plane is probably already a serious crime.

  9. Keven E

    R-Fence

    What's the functional distance of an drone RF jamming signal? Perhaps just mount one on the nose making them just drop out from in front?

    1. Jess--

      Re: R-Fence

      jamming the control signals would probably not help, most quads capable of flying that high will have systems that will either hold position or return to launch position if the signal is lost

  10. x 7 Silver badge

    simple answer

    anyone who endangers an aircraft with one of this things should be compulsorily shown how much damage can be done to a jet engine.

    By throwing him into a jet engine running at full speed. Let the punishment fit the crime

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I think that's a waste of a good jet engine. Just nail them to the ramp towards the parking lot so people slow down a bit, best in a tight corner so there's a good deal of friction involved as well.

  12. x 7 Silver badge

    going back many years, but I used to play rugby on a pitch alongside a runway. On saturdays part of the airfield was taken over by a model aircraft club. We used to complain bitterly about the models (some of them quite big) flying overhead. One day the inevitable happened: one came down at speed and piled into the ground about five feet from a scrum. It didn't survive long under a pile of boots.

    Then the owner came to collect it and complained about what we'd done to his toy.

    He ended up under a pile of boots as well

    Strangely enough we never had further problems from the club, they very carefully kept their models over the airfield from then on

  13. DropBear Silver badge
    Facepalm

    "It also wants "technology to stop drones from being able to fly in areas where they could meet commercial traffic to be routinely fitted to the devices"."

    Yes! Because compulsory backdooring encryption will absolutely thwart those evil bastards who just roll their own oh terribly sorry, wrong thread...

  14. Jan 0
    Holmes

    Motive. What's the fascination with airports anyway?

    What kind of person wants to fly a drone close to full sized aircraft? Is this extreme plane spotting? For every drone strike, won't there be hundreds of drones wrecked by vortices ("wake turbulence")? That's expensive for the drone owners. If we understood their motive(s), maybe we could devise a simple deterrent.

    1. David Roberts Silver badge
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Motive. What's the fascination with airports anyway?

      Bet I can get closer to a plane than you can!

      Cor, didya see that big bugger swerve? Bet they spilled their free booze!

      Nah, thats nuffin. Just watch this.......

      ......'ere, you use the laser pointer and I'll fly the drone.....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Motive. What's the fascination with airports anyway?

        "you use the laser pointer"

        Have there been any UK trials for using a laser pointer (or similar) to harass an aircraft?

        One started in North Wales last year but had to be abandoned when it turned out that two people on the jury were connected to one of the prosecution witnesses (an undercover policeman). Rescheduled for some time in 2016 (for alleged offences starting in 2013).

        The charge in question was "Destroying, damaging or endangering the safety of an aircraft", which would seem to potentially apply to idiot drone operators. It's in the Aviation Security Act 1982 s. 2 and carries a maximum life sentence.

        So it doesn't sound like any new laws are needed, just proper awareness and enforcement of the existing ones. Fancy that.

        Meanwhile, police budgets round the country are being cut, and in many areas people see little point in involving the police when crimes occur...

        http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/jury-discharged-case-anglesey-man-10487187

        http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/36

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    causing the crash of a plane is already a serious crime.

    That's what skelband said, except he said "probably".

    The UK politicians have agreed, since 1982 at least, when the Aviation Security Act created the offence of "Destroying, damaging or endangering the safety of an aircraft", which carries a maximum life sentence.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: causing the crash of a plane is already a serious crime.

      "Destroying, damaging or endangering the safety of an aircraft", which carries a maximum life sentence

      I'm perfectly OK with the maximum, but is there a minimum? What we don't want is some idiot walking out afterwards because his lawyer managed to get the term reduced..

      1. Vic

        Re: causing the crash of a plane is already a serious crime.

        What we don't want is some idiot walking out afterwards because his lawyer managed to get the term reduced..

        FTFY...

        Vic.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: causing the crash of a plane is already a serious crime.

          FTFY...

          Thnx. The disadvantage of not being a native speaker..

          1. Vic

            Re: causing the crash of a plane is already a serious crime.

            The disadvantage of not being a native speaker.

            That might explain why you didn't get my (rather crude) joke...

            Vic.

  16. wardster

    Wouldn't it be possible for ATC to utilize a spectrum analyser on frequencies known to be used by drone operators? If all of a sudden the analyser picks up a signal source a "bit too strong to be of comfort within range of ATC", then alarms go off, and ground control staff have some nice sniffer devices to start a quick scoot around the perimeter. Accompanied of course by officers carrying BIG FUCKING GUNS.

    It isn't exactly rocket science, and with a little bit of trig, then the offending operator would be soon be on their face, with a big hairy sweaty officer of the law pointing $weapon at their heads.

    After of course, they have been asked politely to land said drone.

  17. aberglas

    Drones can't crash airplanes

    This is complete nonsense. Even if a drone did hit an aircraft, it would barely scratch the paint. A big drone might, if it was *extremely* unlucky, take out an engine, although it would probably just go straight through the turbo fan.

    (Next time you board a heavy, look how think the aluminium is around the doors. (For God's sake don't touch it, or you'll be labelled a terrorist.) The skin is thicker on the nose and leading edges. They land at about 140 knots (70 m/s). Fast, but nothing like the 8,000 m/s that satellites travel. Now think about a light weigth drone, and use a bit of common sense.)

    And the pilot should see a big drone. (They are supposed to be looking out the window, although many only play computer games in the cockpit.)

    There has always been a grab by airline pilots to lock up all the airspace. They have been very successful in Australia, much less so in the USA. It is nonsense, always has been.

    It might be reasonable for huge drones over, say, 10kg, to carry a radar transponder which would make them very visible to aircraft. Most light planes already do that.

    What kills airplanes is stupid pilots. That cannot make a basic visual approach without instruments (SFO). Or fly straight into a huge flock of geese and land in a river. Maybe we need to ban birds? 99.9% of pilots are very good (and certainly can handle minor distractions), but the other 0.1% is still a lot of awful pilots.

    Now a simple rocket with a guidence system based on a cheap camera and a Rasbery Pi with a few kg of high explosives, that would be a different matter. Maybe we need to ban Rasbery Pis.

    It would be interesting to know how many experts on this thread have actually flown a plane. (I have.)

    1. wardster

      Re: Drones can't crash airplanes

      ive flown lots of planes too. various sizes, shapes and speeds.

      always end up crashing though.

      whats your favourite design of paper aeroplane?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Drones can't crash airplanes

      Drones can't crash airplanes

      This is complete nonsense. Even if a drone did hit an aircraft, it would barely scratch the paint. A big drone might, if it was *extremely* unlucky, take out an engine, although it would probably just go straight through the turbo fan.

      I appreciate you're trying to troll, but you really should be less obvious about it. This site is visited by reasonably intelligent people (although, granted, you're trying this on a Monday morning which is admittedly a good move) and they won't go for totally abject stupidity. If you were that stupid you wouldn't be on this site, on account of all the difficult words we normally use.

      So, nice try, but must work harder.

    3. JamesPond
      Coat

      Re: Drones can't crash airplanes

      So you would be happy flying in a twin engined turbo-fan plane and seeing one of the engines explode as it ingests a drone? What a moron.

    4. Dan Paul

      Re: Drones can't crash airplanes (Oh yes they can!)

      You are thinking of propeller driven planes which I grant may be difficult to take down with only a small drone. The speed of a single engine prop driven plane isn't usually much beyond 100 MPH.

      However, commercial passenger carrying aircraft are almost ALL jets or turbojets (Props driven by jets).

      The speed of a jet is considerably higher than a prop plane, therefore the impact forces will be greater.

      If a single seagull or duck can disable a jet rotor then a single drone can do the same thing. Even debris on the runway is enough to knock one out of commission.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019