back to article Drone smacks commercial passenger plane in Canada

Canada's transport minster has told drone operators to stay away from airports after a remotely piloted craft bonked a passenger plane during its final approach to Jean Lesage International Airport in Québec City. Minister Marc Garneau hasn't revealed the model of the drone, but we do know that it hit a plane operated by …

  1. David Roberts Silver badge
    Unhappy

    They seek him here...

    Be interesting to see if they manage to track the drone pilot (drilot?) down.

    If not, the wrong lesson will probably be learned.

    1. Christoph Silver badge

      Re: They seek him here...

      Hopefully they will be able to recover DNA and/or fingerprints from the wreckage. They may not have the operator on file yet, but they will keep those records for a long time just in case they ever get a hit.

      1. trollied

        Re: They seek him here...

        Depends on the make of the drone. If it was a DJI Mavic drone, for example, then they'll nab him - all flights are logged to their servers & you have to register the drone to your account in order to fly a certain distance / altitude away from yourself.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: They seek him here...

          You operate on the principle he used genuine details.

          Surely, anyone on here with a modicum of common-coco never uses their real details for anything like this??

          Bank sites, amazon etc yes, you'll have to use mainly genuine details but some site logging where your QUADCOPTER (they are NOT fucking drones) flies is a step to far to shimmy up real, identifialble details...

          1. SkippyBing Silver badge

            Re: They seek him here...

            '(they are NOT fucking drones)'

            They fucking are.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: They seek him here...

              So, is a model aeroplane a drone? Or a model helicopter?

              They both fly, unmanned.

              They have names, plane, helicopter, quadcopter, octocopter and hexacopter.

              Nowhere there is drone mentioned, used or needed.

              As i said, they are NOT "drones".

              Their general nomenclature is model aircraft.

              1. 's water music Silver badge
                Headmaster

                Re: They seek him here...

                As i said, they are NOT "drones".

                Their general nomenclature is model aircraft.

                Vacuum cleaner is not hoover

                I.E. desktop shortcut is not Teh Internetz

                'could care less' is not 'could not care less'

                literally is not figuratively

                hackers are not crackers

                ...cont. p94

                Language is usage. Sometimes you have to admit defeat. Not for 'would of' though.

              2. Not also known as SC

                Re: They seek him here...

                I must be honest, when ever I see the word drone I tend to think of things like the General Atomics MQ-1 Predator first and quadcopters second.

                1. David Nash Silver badge

                  Re: They seek him here...

                  "General Atomics MQ-1 Predator first and quadcopters second"

                  For headlines like "IS commander killed by drone hit" yes, it's most likely not a quadcopter. But for "Drone hits commercial passenger plane" it's going to be a quadcopter, no?

                  Context is key.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: They seek him here...

                    "General Atomics MQ-1 Predator first and quadcopters second"

                    For headlines like "IS commander killed by drone hit" yes, it's most likely not a quadcopter. But for "Drone hits commercial passenger plane" it's going to be a quadcopter, no?

                    Context is key.

                    See also:

                    A drone stung me

                    A drone was destroyed by Captain Picard.

                    Now, the first is silly, because we don't care about the type of insect, we want to know the species - a "honking great big wasp stung me"

                    "Drone," as it relates to the media, fits into headlines much better than "non-autonomous remote-controlled model quadcopter". Also, it could have been a hexacopter or octocopter, or a felinecopter.

              3. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

                Re: They seek him here...

                They fusking well are drones. A 'Drone' is an unmanned aircraft, usually remote controlled . The name is derived from the 'Queen Bee' which was used an aerial target. There's no requirement for the drone to have the capability of autonomous flight, surveillance, or deliver ordnance.

              4. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: They seek him here...

                "

                Re: They seek him here...

                So, is a model aeroplane a drone? Or a model helicopter?

                They both fly, unmanned.

                They have names, plane, helicopter, quadcopter, octocopter and hexacopter.

                Nowhere there is drone mentioned, used or needed.

                As i said, they are NOT "drones".

                Their general nomenclature is model aircraft."

                Not so. The rules and regulations concerning the operation of small drones and concerning model aircraft are quite different, and involve different procedures and permissions, as well as different government certificates - which vary with purpose and location - as well as being administered quite differently.

          2. TechnicalBen Silver badge

            Re: Surely...

            "Surely, anyone on here with a modicum of common-coco never uses their real details for anything like this??"

            But also not have the common sense to avoid an airport/aircraft? Well, I suppose everyone can be an expert at one thing, and nothing else...

          3. d3vy Silver badge

            Re: They seek him here...

            "Surely, anyone on here with a modicum of common-coco never uses their real details for anything like this??"

            It appears to be registered to Stringfellow Hawke who lives in San Remo... Lets get right on it.

            I find it quite funny when I go into a pub and the wifi auto connects and I get a welcome back Mr FannyFace page in my browser.

        2. http://www.dji.com/flysafe/geo-map
          Mushroom

          Re: They seek him here...

          Meanwhile back on planet reality.

          It would take a commercial drone like a crop duster, or the big ones they use for firefighting to bring down a plane (between $8,000 and $20,000, weighing as much as 20Kg or 44lbs). I doubt it was a DJI drone, a DJI drone will stop working if you're anywhere near an airport. Check out http://www.dji.com/flysafe/ . Most drones (anything you could buy at toys'r'us) are simply too light and fragile to do anything more than chip the paint on a prop aircraft. The drone would shatter into a billion microscopic fragments, especially if it hit the propeller. A bird is far heavier and far less fragile, I’ve seen the result of hitting a pelican with a small single prop sea plane. A bent strut and a serious dent. A drone would have to be packed with explosives and very hard shrapnel to even damage an airliner. Sounds like another case of techno-panic. If drones or mobile phones, tablets, laptops…etc, were anywhere near the threat to aircraft the media and government would have us believe, there would be planes falling out of the sky like hailstones. So far, all we've seen is a few startled pilots who thought they saw a tiny dark blur for a nanosecond and the odd powdered drone, or possibly a beetle.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        recover DNA and/or fingerprints from the wreckage

        I doubt they will do that.

    2. amlendu kumar

      Re: They seek him here...

      Drone Pilot = Drodiot or drondiot depending on which rhymes better

    3. Antron Argaiv Silver badge

      Re: They seek him here...

      So they can send him a bill, presumably.

      No need to fine the dronist, he'll probably expire on his own, when he sees what it costs to fix anything on a commercial aircraft.

    4. Trigonoceps occipitalis

      Re: They seek him here...

      "drilot"

      I think you meant "idiot".

      (My spell checker offers "drolly"; no, I have no idea either.)

  2. DainB Bronze badge

    How is it different

    from striking a goose. Or rather geese, which unlike drones tend to fly in flocks.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How is it different

      Geese aren't made of hard plastic, metal and or carbon fiber and usually don't carry LiPo's. They are also not controlled by some dumbass with a remote controll who cant follow basic drone safety rules or practice common sense.

      1. DainB Bronze badge

        Re: How is it different

        So would you prefer be hit by a 1 kg drone or 5 kg goose ?

        "They are also not controlled by some dumbass with a remote controll who cant follow basic drone safety rules or practice common sense."

        And I suppose geese do practice common sense and do follow some basic geese safety rules ?

        1. whoseyourdaddy

          Re: How is it different

          We have videos of dead birds being tossed into jet engines to make sure the spectacular failure doesn't take out the entire plane.

          They could run the same test with drones, but they don't. Obviously, drones shouldn't be anywhere within a mile of an airport in the first place.

          Act of terrorism?

          Possibly.

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: How is it different

            Obviously, drones shouldn't be anywhere within a mile of an airport in the first place.

            Here they are banned within 5km of an "airport".

            But the definition includes the harbour because seaplanes use it and any hospital or office building with a helipad on the roof.

            So they are banned from downtown, the entire occupied area of the city, the agricultural land zone, the mountains, the ski resorts and the bulk load terminal stockpiles.

            Meanwhile traffic news, commuter and rich-yacht owner helicopters buzz the city all day

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: How is it different

              Meanwhile traffic news, commuter and rich-yacht owner helicopters buzz the city all day

              .. who had to pass exams and require annual recertification to operate in that space, and who are kept apart by air traffic control. Entirely different issue.

              1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

                Re: How is it different

                "pass exams and require annual recertification to operate in that space, and who are kept apart by air traffic control"

                And will become red smears in the event of a collision.

            2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

              Re: How is it different

              Those chopper pilots are flying under the direction of the local ATC. Drones (unless they are the professional ones) are not and often piloted by people who may well have had a few beers (or more).

              These idiots will more than likely only hasten the day when all drones will be banned unless the pilot is qualified, licensed and insured.

            3. big_D Silver badge

              Re: How is it different

              In Germany, you cannot fly them over any residential, civic, commercial or industrial areas (privacy and damage from crash landings - normal aircraft also aren't allowed lower than 500M over residential areas.

              Similar limits to airports as have already been mentioned.

              Basically, you can fly them over open fields, at model aircraft airports or over woods - within visual range of the pilot.

              A new rule this month, all drones over 2 Kg in weight need a special pilots license.

              For flying over towns, residential areas etc. for filming etc. you need to get a special dispensation to allow you to use the drone in a specific area at a specific time and date.

              1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

                Re: How is it different

                Excellent?

                And how is it enforced?

                While Das Ordnung is all good, it also needs Das Politzei and Das Gefängnis for the miscreants.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: How is it different

                  Excellent?

                  And how is it enforced?

                  While Das Ordnung is all good, it also needs Das Politzei and Das Gefängnis for the miscreants.

                  I think @LDS just came up with an interesting idea.

                  :)

                2. big_D Silver badge

                  Re: How is it different

                  @Vorland's right hand

                  exactly, it is enforced by the police and the Ordnungsamt. If you spot one, you call the police.

                3. Stoneshop Silver badge
                  Headmaster

                  Re: How is it different

                  While Das Ordnung is all good, it also needs Das Politzei and Das Gefängnis

                  Ahem. While 'das Gefängnis' is correct, both "Polizei" (without the 't') and "Ordnung" are feminine, and thus should have 'die' as the article. Also, articles don't get capitalised, except at the start of a sentence, obviously.

                4. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

                  Re: How is it different

                  "While Das Ordnung is all good, it also needs Das Politzei and Das Gefängnis for the miscreants."

                  One out of three. Don't have too much faith in Google translate.

            4. David M Hoffman

              Re: How is it different

              Those pilots might have a loss of certificate or license to fly if they flew into the landing approach of a passenger airliner, thus they almost always stay out of those areas.

            5. maret77

              Re: How is it different

              I suspect that "traffic news, commuter and rich-yacht owner helicopter" operators actually do follow aviation laws and remain in communication with the proper authorities and can take evasive action if necessary.

              I've got NO problem whatever in banning drones from downtown or from hospital helipads or from airports. One man's cute little amusements should not take precedence over pubic safety.

            6. anothercynic Silver badge

              Re: How is it different

              Because helicopters are licensed aircraft, controlled by licenced operators.

          2. DainB Bronze badge

            Re: How is it different

            "We have videos of dead birds being tossed into jet engines to make sure the spectacular failure doesn't take out the entire plane."

            And that knowledge helped US Airways flight 1549 exactly how ?

            1. whoseyourdaddy

              Re: How is it different

              "And that knowledge helped US Airways flight 1549 exactly how ?"

              Don't be an idiot.

              If a turbine blade breaks off, which is guaranteed if a solid object enters an engine during operation, you don't want blade chunks puncturing the side of the aircraft at supersonic speeds.

            2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

              Re: How is it different

              And that knowledge helped US Airways flight 1549 exactly how ?

              It did not take out the entire plane. Engines died, but the plane remained structurally sound and capable of gliding. The rest was sheer luck - having an experienced glider pilot on the controls (*).

              So far most pilots have failed to perform the water landing on the Hudson on a simulator.

              1. Alan Brown Silver badge

                Re: How is it different

                "So far most pilots have failed to perform the water landing on the Hudson on a simulator."

                Even a glider pilot wouldn't have experience with 2 draggy waterscoops hanging under the wings. Sully flared and bellyflopped perfectly

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: How is it different

                So far most pilots have failed to perform the water landing on the Hudson on a simulator.

                Well, duh. Simulators don't have the same buoyancy, they'll sink immediately.

                :)

            3. Anonymous South African Coward Silver badge
              Trollface

              Re: How is it different

              From Wikipedia : "On January 31, the plane was moved to Kearny, New Jersey. The bird remains were later identified by DNA testing to be Canada geese, which typically weigh more than engines are designed to withstand ingesting."

              Design a high-speed macerator which sits in front of the engine and macerates any foreign object to a fine enough composition to allow the debris to pass through the turbine without damage to the turbine?

              1. Stoneshop Silver badge
                Coat

                Re: How is it different

                The bird remains were later identified by DNA testing to be Canada geese,

                Do those say "Sorry, eh?" before they smash into a plane?

              2. Alan Brown Silver badge

                Re: How is it different

                "Design a high-speed macerator which sits in front of the engine and macerates any foreign object"

                When the foreign object is large enough, you're also going to be ingesting parts of the macerator - which is why they don't do it. That, and the risk of detached "bits" getting ingested and the issue that extra drag is a serious issue - even mesh inlets on helicoptor turboshafts have generally gone away in favour of centrifigual intakes for FOD reasons.

            4. Triggerfish

              Re: How is it different @ DainB

              It didn't. Murphys law, it happens.

              Although that knowledge, probably did save a lot of other planes that have birdstrikes, and probably allowed them to engineer so that if it does fail, nasty bits don't fly off and do more damage somewhere else while you have an engine loss.

            5. Antron Argaiv Silver badge

              Re: How is it different

              "And that knowledge helped US Airways flight 1549 exactly how ?"

              One goose at a time, please, no pushing.

              1. Mike Moyle Silver badge

                Re: How is it different

                "One goose at a time, please, no pushing."

                Is it really a goose if they're not pushing?

            6. Version 1.0 Silver badge

              Re: How is it different

              1549 hit a flock of geese, multiple strikes with many birds entering both engines at 2000+ feet - these were not small birds.

              I don't know how engines are tested these days but in my younger days we used to fire frozen chickens into them one at a time. I never saw an engine fail to chew them down and spit them out the back so I don't think the average consumer drone is anything to worry about. Obviously I'd prefer not to hit one but a drone is a lot lower mass than a goose.

              How does a drone compare to a goose? Adult Canada geese weigh around 12-16 lbs with a 50+ inch wingspan.

            7. d3vy Silver badge

              Re: How is it different

              "And that knowledge helped US Airways flight 1549 exactly how ?"

              Well.. the engines didnt explode in a massive fireball removing the wings.. so theres that.

              The plane also successfully landed*.

              * In as far as it was no longer in the air and no one was killed.

          3. jmch Silver badge
            Joke

            Re: How is it different

            " videos of dead birds being tossed into jet engines to make sure the spectacular failure doesn't take out the entire plane"

            Puts me in mind of a (possibly apocryphal) tale about using whole chickens bought in a local supermarket to simulate bird engine strikes. One particular test completely destroyed the engine to a far greater extent than the testers had ever anticipated. Then they learned to defrost the chickens before shooting them into the engines.

            1. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: How is it different

              "One particular test completely destroyed the engine to a far greater extent than the testers had ever anticipated. Then they learned to defrost the chickens before shooting them into the engines."

              IIRC the test was intended to be of the resistance of high speed train windscreens to birdstrikes.

              What they actually ended up testing was their resistance to concrete blocks being pushed off overbridges.

              (This is a valid concern for trains. USA locomotive cabins have had specially strengthened front windows fitted since the 1970s in response to a large number of concrete block incidents and armoured side windows due to gunfire.)

          4. Haku

            Re: How is it different

            "Act of terrorism?

            Possibly."

            Have you heard of Occam's razor?

          5. PNGuinn
            Joke

            Re: How is it different

            "They could run the same test with drones, but they don't. Obviously, drones shouldn't be anywhere within a mile of an airport in the first place."

            Shirly, the best way to film a drone being flown into a jet engine would be a drone. Or another drone.

            Y'know, there's always some petty bureaucrat somewhere trying to spoil someone else's fun.

        2. I'm Dugly

          Re: How is it different

          This is dreadfully embarrassing. As a Canadian, we expect so much from our geese, but they keep getting dumbed-down when they migrate South during the winter.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: How is it different

          I'm all for legislating for the geese to be in violation of traffic regulation in proximity of airports! And you can DNA their shit and catch them evildoers when they shit again!

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: How is it different

          And I suppose geese do practice common sense and do follow some basic geese safety rules ?

          No, they certainly don't. And geese are a lot more dangerous than silly plastic & metal toys.

          Canada geese have been reported at altitudes of 9km, much higher than a consumer drone will fly, so a danger to aircraft in all stages of flight, not just takeoff and landing.

          And, as noted, geese ten to be plural.

        5. HieronymusBloggs

          Re: How is it different

          "So would you prefer be hit by a 1 kg drone or 5 kg goose ?"

          As has been pointed out, geese are made of softer materials than the average drone. Would you rather be hit by a 1kg pillow or a 15g bullet?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: How is it different

            If the 15g bullet was travelling at the speed of the average thrown pillow, I'm not sure it would do too much damage, unless it hit you in the eye, or the knee... and let's not go there..

        6. Loud Speaker

          Re: How is it different

          So would you prefer be hit by a 1 kg drone or 5 kg goose?

          Can I assume the goose would be cooked?

      2. maret77

        Re: How is it different

        The thing is, we don't know if it was "practice" for something more sinister. Maybe the fellow wasn't so stupid after all.

        What's stupid is that our regulators have set out a cute little fine of $25,000 and not bothered to mandate certain safety features that prevent these potentially deadly drones from hitting a planeload of people.

      3. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: How is it different

        "Geese aren't made of hard plastic, metal and or carbon fiber and usually don't carry LiPo's."

        Geese are dense, large and make a hell of a mess. As do ducks - which I know from personal experience at 350 feet or so AGL.

        That thing on the front of an aeroplane is NOT a propellor, it's a cooling fan for the pilot. if you don't believe that, watch how much he sweats when it stops.

        1. Stoneshop Silver badge

          Re: How is it different

          Geese are dense,

          They do fairly well as guard animals, so they're not that stupid anyway. A little smarter and they would know to stay away from airfields and their associated flight paths.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Geese are dense,

          The ones capable of flight aren't, compared to non-flying animals.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: How is it different

          Geese are dense

          Given some of the comments here, I get the impression that they share that with some drone operators.. It made me recall that wonderful insult: "he's so dense, light bends around him".

      4. PNGuinn
        WTF?

        Geese aren't made of hard plastic

        You'll tell me sharks don't have frikkin lasers next.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How is it different

      Simple, If you hit a goose or gander, especially if they're flying in a group, you're well & truely flocked.

      *Drum sting*

      I'll get my coat, it's the one with the pockets full of down.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How is it different

      The drone was goose operated.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        At the other AC, re: the drone was goose operated.

        I'm glad you didn't get your feathers ruffled. Your comment quacked me up.

      2. Teiwaz Silver badge

        Re: How is it different

        Benefit of the doubt...

        Maybe someone 'goosed' the pilot.

      3. Ian Emery Silver badge
        Angel

        Re: The drone was goose operated.

        If only I could upvote that a billion times.

        Thank you, you made a very sick man laugh.

        (Sick in both meanings of the word)

    4. the Jim bloke Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: How is it different

      1. There is no learning incentive to other geese from acting against the offending goose.

      2. There is no financial incentive to the regulatory authorities / legal industry for acting against wildlife.

      Against drone operators, there is both the potential of a positive outcome, and a financial reward,..

      How is this not obvious ?

      1. dogcatcher

        Re: How is it different

        1. There is no learning incentive to other geese from acting against the offending goose.

        Apart from Darwinism. When all geese that like flying through engines have eliminated themselves then the problem will go away.

        1. MadPsy

          Re: How is it different

          That's the common misunderstanding of how 'darwinism', or rather natural selection, works. For what you said to be true there would need to be something which is compelling the geese to fly in front of aircraft. Instead, it's unfortunate timing, which natural selection does not 'solve'.

      2. Stoneshop Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: How is it different

        2. There is no financial incentive to the regulatory authorities / legal industry for acting against wildlife.

        One can imagine there being a culinary incentive, though.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How is it different

      How is it different

      from striking a goose. Or rather geese, which unlike drones tend to fly in flocks.?

      Easy. Goose presence is misadventure and hard to control. Drone presence is somewhere between boneheaded stupidity and malicious intent and NEVER an accident because it requires a human operator not to follow clearly laid out guidelines and rules that are there for a very practical reason. Why the f*ck do we have to go through this every flaming time a near miss happens? Do you really need to see bodies on the ground and families ripped apart before you get this?

      The idea of risk management is to avoid risks as much as is practical, not run one risk because another one happens to be present. You're telling me you won't slow down your car near a school because kids don't show up much on motorways either.

      1. DainB Bronze badge

        Re: How is it different

        "The idea of risk management is to avoid risks as much as is practical not run one risk because another one happens to be present. You're telling me you won't slow down your car near a school because kids don't show up much on motorways either."

        Say that you were told that you have 80% chance of dying in a desert from dehydration but only 20 percent from drowning. And the good news is that you're in the desert and you won't be drowning. Feeling better ?

        All I'm telling you is that no matter how much you're going to twist your panties something that we have absolutely no control over - birds - present significantly higher risks and eliminating smaller risk while doing absolutely nothing about higher makes absolutely no difference to safety.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: How is it different

          That's whataboutism and you know it.

          If you don't know it, then you're even worse.

          1. The Indomitable Gall
            Joke

            Re: How is it different

            @AC:

            " That's whataboutism and you know it. "

            Ah, but what about you getting the word "whatabouttery" wrong...?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: How is it different

          All I'm telling you is that no matter how much you're going to twist your panties something that we have absolutely no control over - birds - present significantly higher risks and eliminating smaller risk while doing absolutely nothing about higher makes absolutely no difference to safety.

          Ah, so because there is already a risk that we can't do anything about, it is perfectly OK to add more risks? Do you really, really don't see the problem here? In that case, I hope you never get a driving license.

          1. DainB Bronze badge

            Re: How is it different

            "Ah, so because there is already a risk that we can't do anything about, it is perfectly OK to add more risks?"

            No, if you don't worry about bird strikes (which by the way is a routine daily occurrence at every major airport) then you should not worry about significantly less likely and less damaging drone strike. That simple.

            1. Paul 195

              Re: How is it different

              How long do you think "drone strikes aircraft" will remain a rare occurrence if lots of people decide to ignore the rules and fly their drones near airports? It's a rare occurrence compared to bird strikes because there are rules. If we could get birds to obey rules too, we'd do that as well.

            2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              Re: How is it different

              "No, if you don't worry about bird strikes (which by the way is a routine daily and unavoidable occurrence at every major airport) then you should not worry about significantly less likely and avoidable and less damaging drone strike. That simple."

              Well, somebody's simple.

        3. Nolveys Silver badge

          Re: How is it different

          eliminating smaller risk while doing absolutely nothing about higher makes absolutely no difference to safety.

          "Daddy, should you be driving? You've had a lot to drink."

          "Do...donworry, cardiovascular disease kills mahr peopl then car accada..accadents."

          THUNK-THUNK

          "Hab a goo day a school hu...hungey."

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: How is it different

          Surely the highest risk is still the human factor. Be that human error from flight crew, ATC, maintenance crews etc. Probably just safer all round if we stop putting people inside tin cans and propelling them through the air.

          On a more serious note, clearly the 'drone' operator in this case was being stupid flying too high and too close to an airport. The positive side is that it's proven a quadcopter/drone strike on an aircraft won't automatically result in the plane coming down in flames with mass causalities as the media would have you believe. This was a small aircraft too so probably more vulnerable than a large airliner.

          I do think everyone flying a model aircraft should have 3rd party insurance (it's cheap, why wouldn't you) and fly safely within the existing regulations. That said the authorities should work on enforcing existing regulations, particularity around airports, and catching idiots like this rather than introducing additional regulation which they still won't be able to enforce.

      2. LDS Silver badge

        Re: How is it different

        I guess we need hawks trained to attack drone operators, just like they are used to keep other birds away.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: How is it different

          I guess we need hawks trained to attack drone operators, just like they are used to keep other birds away.

          Now THAT would be a solution. Hawks trained to work out who operates a drone and taking them out instead of the drone itself. I like your thinking.

          I'm not quite sure how they'd take them out (hawk mounted laser, maybe, on account of sharks having some trouble with the whole flying concept, or just carry a suitably large brick, or maybe use swallows and coconuts), but the concept itself is excellent.

          :)

          (sorry, but that was just too tempting :p )

          1. Muscleguy Silver badge

            Re: How is it different

            I was dive-bombed by black backed gulls as a child in New Zealand. They were nesting on the waste waterfront ground I was crossing on my bike to go fishing at the wharves. That was bad, sharp taloned raptor? no thanks.

            If I was being dive-bombed by a hawk I would turn and run or duck and cover as appropriate.

            BTW in NZ we have Australasian magpies, large corvids and they get angsty when they are nesting and are not above striking humans and drawing scalp blood. So the risk there is non zero.

            Further BTW gulls nest on the ground in NZ since no native mammalian predators.

            1. Triggerfish

              Re: How is it different @ Muscleguy

              I'm thinking less Hawk, more Harpy Eagle. Pretty sure one of those dive bombing a drone operator will put them off suitably.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Harpy Eagle, special training?

                Perhaps train the birds to attack anyone standing on the ground inside the proscribed area who is holding an R/C transmitter?

                Anon because...

            2. Stoneshop Silver badge
              Devil

              Re: How is it different

              That was bad, sharp taloned raptor? no thanks.

              Two years ago, an Eurasian Eagle-owl (Bubo Bubo) had gotten rather territorial concerning a cyclepath. Over fifty attacks have been reported, with several people wounded.

              People preferred to make detours. Those birds have a wingspan same as the height of an average person.

          2. Stoneshop Silver badge
            Devil

            Re: How is it different

            or just carry a suitably large brick,

            I was thinking, two bricks to prevent further procreation, but then realised that if the drone operator was knocked out, most birds of prey are sufficiently equipped to deal with that anyway, they'd just need some additional training.

            1. graeme leggett
              Coat

              Re: How is it different

              " ...two bricks to prevent further procreation...."

              "But won't it hurt?"

              "Only if you get your thumbs in the way."

              Mine's the one with a very old joke book in the pocket

          3. Nifty

            Re: How is it different

            Where's everyone been?

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-35750816/eagles-trained-to-take-down-drones

            or if you prefer hawk over eagle:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDG_WBIQgc

          4. PNGuinn
            Coat

            Re: How is it different

            "I'm not quite sure how they'd take them out (hawk mounted laser, maybe, on account of sharks having some trouble with the whole flying concept, or just carry a suitably large brick, or maybe use swallows and coconuts), but the concept itself is excellent."

            To ignore for a moment the question of what would happen if the hawk was to miss aim the brick, what would be the effect on the average modern jet engine of ingesting a large hawk aimed shark? Could the laser be programmed to weld any dislocated blades back on on the way through?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: How is it different

              To ignore for a moment the question of what would happen if the hawk was to miss aim the brick, what would be the effect on the average modern jet engine of ingesting a large hawk aimed shark? Could the laser be programmed to weld any dislocated blades back on on the way through?

              Given the tolerances involved I think you'd be better off with a sardine mounted laser - there's not exactly a lot of space between those blades. One of the problems with that idea is that a sardine attracts geese that may want to eat it, thus turning a potential problem into a certainty :).

              You then also still have to address the issue that sardines, like sharks, are not known for their ability to fly great distances. Their compatibility with air travel stems more from the fact that you can stick a lot of them in a small tin, à la budget airlines.

              :)

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: How is it different

        "Why the f*ck do we have to go through this every flaming time a near miss happens?"

        Because some commentards are drone operators who feel threatened? If so they should be condemning stupidity along with the rest.

    6. Arctic fox
      Facepalm

      Re: How is it different

      The difference is that geese are not sentient and that drone pilot was - errr, actually considering what that irresponsible plank did his sentience is in fact in question.

    7. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: How is it different

        "if a pilot sees them, he can avoid them."

        The odds of a pilot seeing birds on a collision course are slim to negligable. As I understand it Sully and his copilot caught a glimpse of the flock just as it went under their nose.

        I went head-on into a duck squadron and only saw the one which just avoided being propellor mincemeat for about a tenth of a second as it flared and went above me. I never saw the one that (slightly) dented the wing's leading edge, but well and truely felt it - and the closing speed was only about 120mph. Airliners are flying a _LOT_ faster than that, with higher pilot loadings when in the pattern and significantly less time to identify an (effectively) near-stationary object in the sky in front of you.

        the same applies to drones. They're small, slow and bloody hard to see - which is why I take all reported sightings with a large dose of cynicism, especially when you take into account that the number of "drone sightings" at Heathrow and other airports has an almost 1:1 correspondance with the decrease in the number of "bird sightings" - and having watched cranes and other large birds hanging around the streams on the south side of Heathrow, then flying north over the runways I know what I'm putting my money on as the more likely culprit for most sightings.

        _ANY_ transport pilot who claims that a drone tracked alongside their aircraft should be given as much credence as one who saw a UFO with Roswell Greys waving out the window at them. They may have seen something, but it wasn't what they think it was. Even racing drones can't go that fast and racing drones can only keep it up for a few seconds.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: How is it different

          the same applies to drones. They're small, slow and bloody hard to see - which is why I take all reported sightings with a large dose of cynicism

          So the question is if those sightings were collaborated by sightings from people on the ground who are both stationary and less occupied with other rather vital operations. Good question to ask IMHO.

          That said, it is in my opinion brutally academic if these are drones or not - it still holds that (a) we still see idiots fly drones near airports and (b) flying drones near where planes land and take off is quite simply a stupid, risky idea for which the drone owner should be fined into oblivion or locked up for wilful endangerment. If you're a pilot you know the enormous efforts put into risk avoidance and reduction, so idiots adding a risk factor just for giggles is not acceptable. There is no excuse for it.

    8. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: How is it different

      "from striking a goose"

      geese have no concept of laws, rules, regulations, etc. regarding controlled air traffic zones. Drone pilots at least have the capability of understanding (and obeying) them, and ignorance being no excuse etc..

      I don't know what the potential engine damage inflicted by a drone would cost in repairs, but it's probably more money than most people would earn in a year. That assumes that on descent and landing approach [one of the more critical times during flight] the plane doesn't lose control and crash+burn.

      Drone operators should just stay away from controlled air-traffic zones with their drones. We all know where the airports are, you can see [and hear] the planes taking off and landing. Just stay away...

    9. Anthonyl

      Re: How is it different

      The plane is flying in the geese's airspace, the drone is flying in the aircraft's airspace. The drone operator knows he shouldn't be there, the geese are yet to be trained (well probably both are yet to be trained).

      Just have a mandatory 10yr prison sentence on anyone flying a drone where they shouldn't.

    10. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How is it different

      Some drones can carry payloads. I'm curious if any of these reported incidents are dry runs?

  3. cb7

    Typing misfire

    "and was able to land safely landed safely."

    and landed safely.

    Or

    and was able to land safely.

    C'mon Reg. Get with it.

  4. Florida1920

    C'mon Reg. Get with it.

    Someone goosed Simon while he was typing.

  5. Magani
    Unhappy

    Laws and their observance

    All concerned are therefore reminding Canuck drone operators of their obligations to fly ...

    Regrettably, these rules seem only to be observed by those who aren't morons and/or under the influence of the grape or weed and/or preface the flying of their drone by saying "Hey, Watch This!!"

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Laws and their observance

      Regrettably, these rules seem only to be observed by those who aren't morons and/or under the influence of the grape or weed and/or preface the flying of their drone by saying "Hey, Watch This!!"

      Personally, I think they ought to confiscate all those drones and use those for engine damage tests. If the engine survives, they can have the parts back. If the engine gets damaged, they get to pay for the engine repairs by way of fine. Much more educational, and with far less potential for human loss than what they engaged in when they got caught.

    2. Alistair Silver badge
      Windows

      Re: Laws and their observance

      Correction:

      ' morons and/or under the influence of the grape or weed and/or preface the flying of their drone by saying "Hey Here, hold my timmies and Watch This!!"

  6. whoseyourdaddy

    Need to come up with an automated way to implement something like this:

    https://www.battelle.org/government-offerings/national-security/aerospace-systems/counter-UAS-technologies/dronedefender

    https://www.droneshield.com/dronegun

    Can I include a wood chipper with the order?

  7. Tim99 Silver badge
    Coat

    Pedants handbook in my pocket

    "a plane operated by Skyjet Aviation, a charter outfit that despite its name operates only turboprop aircraft".

    I don't know if any domestic airlines use jet aircraft. Turbofans power most medium/long range passenger aircraft, turboprops are often used for smaller short/medium range aircraft. Turbojets are normally for faster military aircraft, I think the last passenger aircraft to use turbojet engines was Concorde.

    1. Hans 1 Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Pedants handbook in my pocket

      Turbojets = jet engines

      Turbofans (aka fanjets) = jet engines

      TurboPROP = propeller engines

      Pedant all you want ...

      1. Mine's a Large One
        Headmaster

        Re: Pedants handbook in my pocket

        TurboPROP = jet engine driving a propellor.

        Carry on pedanting!!

      2. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: Pedants handbook in my pocket

        Turbojets = jet engines

        Turbofans (aka fanjets) = jet engines

        TurboPROP = propeller engines

        Pedant all you want ...

        and all are gas turbines

        (edit: oops posted at the same time as the boastful one above :) )

      3. Tim99 Silver badge

        Re: Pedants handbook in my pocket

        @Hans 1

        Pedant again - As usual, the 'truth' can appear ambiguous. The TURBOProp is a "jet powered" propeller (Mostly 80-95% of thrust from the propeller, with the remainder from the jet exhaust). Early Turbofans generally had perhaps <20% of thrust from the "fan" the rest came from the "jet" - For many modern commercial engines the thrust from the fan is ~90% (or at a similar level to a turboprop). A single fan can be considered to be a multi-bladed ducted propeller - Efficient modern engines use 2 or 3 fan stages. High speed turbojets ("jet engines") typically generate most/all of their thrust from the "jet"; but may be designed to vary the amount of thrust between the turbojet and a bypass turbofan, particularly at lower speed. The term "ducted propeller" is often used for marine thrusters and engines, and "ducted fan" tends to be used for aircraft. The reason that turboprops appear very different is that you can see a large stationary propeller; and that if the blades are rotating, pedestrians need to avoid walking into them :-) Wikipedia Link: Aircraft fans.

        1. Chris Miller

          With apologies for uber-pedantry

          Efficient modern engines use 2 or 3 fan stages

          True, but only the first stage is used for bypass thrust, and hence can be considered analogous to a traditional propeller. The other stages compress the air prior to ignition.

          if the [turboprop] blades are rotating, pedestrians need to avoid walking into them

          And if turbofan blades are rotating, pedestrians need to avoid walking within several metres of them.

          1. bombastic bob Silver badge
            Boffin

            Re: With apologies for uber-pedantry

            turbofan 'bypass thrust' - a brilliant idea, because thrust (essentially) equals mass flow rate times exhaust velocity, expressed as force [similar units to acceleration]. To double thrust, you can either double mass flow rate, or double exhaust velocity. if you double exhaust velocity, it takes 4 times as much energy [from KE=m*v^2/(2*Gc) - double velocity, multiply delta kinetic energy by 4]. Hence, turbo prop and turbo fan engines increase the mass flow rate instead. Then you only need to DOUBLE the amount of energy to double the thrust, a much more efficient engine.

        2. 's water music Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: Pedants handbook in my pocket

          The reason that turboprops appear very different is that you can see a large stationary propeller; and that if the blades are rotating, pedestrians need to avoid walking into them :-)

          Take it from me, pedestrians are equally well advised not to walk into rotating turbo fan and turbo jet engines. DNAMHIKT

          The tattered one please-->

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Pedants handbook in my pocket

            DNAMHIKT?

            1. 's water music Silver badge

              Re: Pedants handbook in my pocket

              Do Not Ask Me How I Know This

  8. Neoc

    And people wonder why I'm against the concept of flying cars: because the same idiot who can't be trusted to properly and lawfully fly 1Kg drone would be operating 1000Kg cars over my head.

  9. lglethal Silver badge
    WTF?

    Hope thay catch the bugger...

    I hope they've been able to recover the drone, should be some rather nice fingerprints on it. And since I cant believe anyone stupid enough to fly a drone on an airport flight path could have survived to this point in their life without having their collared pulled, then it will hopefully be nice and easy to have the Police go and have a little chat with them...

    I have no problem with drones and drone operators normally, but putting your drone in a position where it could lead to the deaths of dozens of people makes you a complete and utter douche of the highest order. We can debate here on El Reg if a drone strike would bring down an aircraft, but why on Earth would you EVER want to put your drone into a LIVE situation where you risk finding out by killing dozens of people in the process???

    1. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: Hope thay catch the bugger...

      I don't think they've been able to recover the drone or parts, they assume that the prop blades made mincemeat of it. In fact there is no hard evidence that it was a drone at all.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hope thay catch the bugger...

      why on Earth would you EVER want to put your drone into a LIVE situation where you risk finding out by killing dozens of people in the process???

      According to the argumentation that shows up every time there's a near miss report, that is because the idiot drone owner feels empowered by the fact that, as yet, nobody has demonstrated the THEIR satisfaction that a drone can take out an engine or even distract a pilot during the most critical phase of a flight, the landing, and anyway, <fill in any kind of flying animal> is a bigger risk.

      It is as if their ability to reason logically has been fully removed, like Trump voters who just lost their healthcare but who will still vote for him.

      1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

        @DainB @Airtor1 and presumably others

        Thank you for your reply to an article on the risks to commercial aircraft from drones. It appears your point is:

        [x] there is no proof it was a Drone

        [x] that hitting a Drone is no worse than hitting a bird

        [ ] this is just an excuse for governments to clamp down on drone use

        [ ] the proposed response will only effect law-abiding drone users

        [ ] blah blah freedom

        [ ] some other innumerate or illogical argument.

        to which I would reply

        [x] your standards of proof are unreasonably high

        [x] although the odds are small, the consequences of a crash are disastrous

        [x] hitting a bird is not a risk-free event either

        [x] just because one risk exists doesn't mean you should accept others [credit to first-page AC]

        [x] this was no accident; the drone pilot deliberately acted this way.

        [ ] some other piece of relatively simple deduction that appears to elude you, you wingnut

        and in addition

        [ ] otherwise your comment was well considered and thoughtful

        [x] risk management. Try again when you understand what those words mean.

        [ ] no, the moon landings weren't faked and yes, climate change is real.

        [ ] with rights come responsibilities

        [ ] back to school junior

        [ ] I'm going to burn down your house etc.

        1. werdsmith Silver badge

          Re: @DainB @Airtor1 and presumably others

          to which I would reply

          [x] your standards of proof are unreasonably high

          There have been more than one aircrew report of drone contact/near miss that has been eventually disproved.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @DainB @Airtor1 and presumably others

            There have been more than one aircrew report of drone contact/near miss that has been eventually disproved.

            Which, naturally, in your logic:

            a - Disproves all occurrences;

            b - Is an argument to then risk it anyway. After all, what could possibly go wrong?

            Honestly, if you cannot spot the problem here you should be banned from ever being as much as NEAR the controls of a drone.

            1. werdsmith Silver badge

              Re: @DainB @Airtor1 and presumably others

              It's got nothing to do with "my logic", and I know exactly what the problem is - I'm not trying to suggest that there isn't a problem.

              I just stated that it's not proven it was a drone impact.

              That is all.

              This is not a reason to go all sanctimonious and supercilious on me.

              1. Stoneshop Silver badge
                Holmes

                Re: @DainB @Airtor1 and presumably others

                I just stated that it's not proven it was a drone impact.

                The CBC article states there was (some) damage to the plane.

                If the damage was caused by a bird then the impact area will show bits of tissue, and blood.

                If there was damage but no traces of blood or tissue it can't have been a bird that the plane hit. And it doesn't take a deep investigation to discern the presence or absence of those traces, especially if there was little time between the incident and the landing, and no rain.

                1. werdsmith Silver badge

                  Re: @DainB @Airtor1 and presumably others

                  No need for a deep investigation. 10 seconds on google will show you numerous incidents of bird strike damage where there is no sign of any body tissue or blood.

  10. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous South African Coward Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Libertarians have created a real nightmare future

      The worst scenario will be when the engine of a plane which's powering the hydraulics etc is targeted on take-off...

      Not sure if the manufacturers have added in redundancy to avoid a repeat scenario of American Airlines Flight 191.

      1. Stoneshop Silver badge

        Re: Libertarians have created a real nightmare future

        Not sure if the manufacturers have added in redundancy to avoid a repeat scenario of American Airlines Flight 191.

        Redundancy didn't prevent United 232 (same airplane model, incidentally). With that one, the technical crew on the ground had a very hard time getting convinced that yes, all three hydraulic circuits were out.

    2. lglethal Silver badge
      Go

      Re: Libertarians have created a real nightmare future

      "Hopefully the pilots will have trained for the scenario where they lose an engine on approach."

      I'm sure they have, but I always like to remind people that Olympic Gymnasts spend many hours a day, 6-7 days a week, for 4 years to perform a specific routine at the Olympics and they still f&ck things up. A pilot spends a couple of hours in a Simulator per month to test a variety of Scenarios, and has dozens of lives in his hands.

      Anyone delibrately forcing a Pilot into testing their response to one of those scenarios in real life needs to spend sometime in Chokey in order to have some common sense beaten into them...

    3. imanidiot Silver badge

      Re: Libertarians have created a real nightmare future

      WTF does this have to do with "libertarians"??

      It's probably just some idiot who never realized there's actually planes flying up there. Or he just wanted some cool footage of one flying close by.

    4. LDS Silver badge

      " Hopefully the pilots will have trained for the scenario where they lose an engine"

      The worst time to lose an engine is when you're slow and low. There may be not time to recover, no matter how trained you are, because the very physics of flying is against you. Propellers, also, introduce torque forces that may make losing an engine even worse - when slow, the airplane may not be controlled because the air flow over aerodynamic surfaces is not enough to allow them counter the other forces. A wing could stall, and the airplane will overturn, for example.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Libertarians have created a real nightmare future

      "Libertarians have created a real nightmare future "

      This is a very odd non sequitur.

      I hope you know more about, well, just about anything, than you do about Libertarians. Clearly you have no clue about who or what they are.

  11. Aitor 1 Silver badge

    Drone?

    They say it was a drone. Are we sure that is really the case? I have seen no pics, no model no nothing. Could be a bird that left no blood behind (rain, etc).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Drone?

      Even if was not a drone, that still doesn't justify putting one the in the flight path of a plane anyway.

      It's in principle an entirely irrelevant fact from the perspective of why you should stay away from aircraft and their flight path with any sort of drone.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Drone?

      "I have seen no pics, no model no nothing."

      Are the aircraft accident investigators obliged to send you copies of their evidence?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Drone?

      Large waterfowl are very tidy targets.

      When you shoot them, and pick up the bodies, there is never any obvious blood, even on the bird itself. I suspect it may have something to do with the thick covering of waterproof feathers.

      Absent ingestion or a propeller strike, or a collision with a sharp antenna or strake, I would be surprised to find blood.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Owner identification

    I think there should be a law where drones should have mandatory identification and registration to a person. If you are spotted with an unregistered and/or unmarked drone --> penalty. There should also be a mandatory qualification to operate drones at certain power/weight/type classes.

    This shouldn't be any different from owning a car or a gun or your personal aircraft. They're registered and carry unique IDs.

    This won't stop naughty people from carrying contraband to prisons or trying to down an aeroplane but it should bring down the usual village idiots.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Owner identification

      The problem with this idea is that those who want to flout the laws will do so anyway, and it will only punish the hobbyist drone operators.

      1. Haku

        Re: Owner identification

        Exactly, introductions of new laws will not stop idiots being idiots or bad people doing bad things.

  13. Baldrickk Silver badge

    I kinda want a drone

    But I live under the landing path of a small, fairly busy airport.

    It's not really worth the hassle.

    1. Stese

      Re: I kinda want a drone

      Surely there is somewhere away from your home you could fly it.

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: I kinda want a drone

      Get a microdrone and fly it indoors.

      1. Triggerfish

        Re: I kinda want a drone

        Agreed the little microdrones are fun and cheap, I had a little Hubsan X4 cost about 30 quid, fine to fly indoors, in the office or your garden (it really won't reach any height to worry about).

        No good if you want to do photography but for mucking about perfectly fine.

  14. Mint Sauce

    C-units like that drone operator

    Are the reason we can't have nice things ;-(

  15. anthonyhegedus Silver badge

    Why would someone fly a drone so high up and so near an airport anyway? I mean the operator had enough intelligence to fly the bloody thing in the first place, so why not also the common sense to stay away from big flying things? What did they hope to gain by flying so high anyway?

  16. TomChaton

    This is why we can't have nice things.

  17. ben kendim

    Why does your desk assume it didn't hit a prop?

    (The drone, I mean, not the desk.)

    So, which craft landed without incident, the drone, the King Air, or both?

    "There's also no news of where the drone struck. As the craft landed without incident, The Register's aviation desk will assume it wasn't chopped up by the plane's propellors with attendant spray of plastic and metal."

    A King Air prop, with a PT6A driving it, could probably shred a DJI and never know it.

    1. Stoneshop Silver badge

      Re: Why does your desk assume it didn't hit a prop?

      A King Air prop, with a PT6A driving it, could probably shred a DJI and never know it.

      There would definitely be traces. And an aircraft propeller runs at higher RPMs than helicopter rotor blades, so the impact involves a lot more energy.

  18. NXM

    Don't mess with the drone

    This guy found out how dangerous drones (or in this case remote controlled helichoppers) are:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/teen-killed-remote-controlled-helicopter-slices-throat-article-1.1447068

    "Freak accident" my bottom. That "elaborate daredevil stunt" was just waiting to go wrong - as many others have pointed out, why raise the risk until its guaranteed to fail? Why not put your hand in the blender to see what'll happen?

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Proof : no harm = no problem

    So after all the paranoia in the headlines, now we know that quadcopters present no danger to aircraft. So evidence and rational argument says we should relax the regulations.

    ... No, we must do the opposite: impose more regulations and crack down harder on otherwise lawful drone users! After all our overlords can't allow the proles technology that might threaten their superiority. It's a good thing most proles don't think laterally and can be easily manipulated into giving up their freedom. Why else would anyone be "stupid" enough to pilot a drone into the flight-path of an aeroplane?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Proof : no harm = no problem

      Proof : no harm = no problem

      So, you are saying that because it thankfully didn't down the plane, it's OK to keep doing it. Now walk outside and cross the street without looking. If you make it to the other end, will you then advocate that everyone should do it because you were lucky enough to survive?

      (if you don't, consider that another important lesson learned).

  20. JaredReabow

    anyone here cares to link me to the evidence that proves this was a drone?

    because right not I see BUPKISS!

    1. werdsmith Silver badge

      3KM from the main runways at Jean-Lesage in any direction are populated areas so all it would take is an appeal for the public in the area to report any likely drone fragments on the ground.

  21. Aitor 1 Silver badge

    No drone

    So there is no proof it was a drone except what the pilot said and we know they have been wrong before.

    I would say "probable drone", but taking action on this seems ridiculous unless proven to be a drone.

  22. Bob Dole (tm)
    Mushroom

    There's an opportunity here

    Anyone that could invent a drone killing gun that fires some type of radio or electrical wave to fry a drones circuitry would make meellions.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: There's an opportunity here

      "

      Anyone that could invent a drone killing gun that fires some type of radio or electrical wave to fry a drones circuitry would make meellions."

      I like it!

      You could fry all the smartphones in the hands of those distracted drivers and pedestrians, and the people who talk loudly on the bus, and who use them to cheat in exams, and students who don't pay attention in class, or shirk their chores, and people who talk in cinemas, or block sidewalks taking 'selfies', and all those noisy bluetooth speakers, and obnoxiously loud car stereos, and connected cars and all those nosey CCTV cameras, and overly flashy advertising screens, and creepy 'smart' speakers, and the neighbour's wifi that cuts your network speed... the applications are endless!

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