New UK drone laws next week

[mightyarrow]

It was.

And there was a hole in the wing.

Link please? Would like to see (I def believe it happened).

 

[Viciam]

This could be the future of drones and makes the most sense. Manufacturers to install systems that would alert regulators automatically of any breaches which could lead to fines and prosecutions. Much like speed cameras for cars etc

Privatizing air traffic control for drone delivery

 

[4wd]

False. I've flown a Mavic to 4400ft up. It's called firmware modifications, and they've been happening since about the Phantom 2, maybe earlier. The P3 Pro, all P4s, and all Mavics have firmware mods for them that remove the altitude caps, increase speeds, and more. I'm kinda surprised you didn't notice last week's...........stuff.......in the forums.

****, there videos all over Youtube with high altitude flights from DJI drones -- even as insane as some Europeans hitting 10,000 ft. I bet you probably didn't realize that the Phantom and Mavic drones can easily clear 16,500ft above sea level. Software caps are the only reason they don't.

An encounter at this altitude, while indeed improbable, is not for the reasons you state, but moreso because most folks luckily aren't stupid enough to fly around air traffic at that altitude, and most don't install said mods.

Link to some of these videos please.
You can fly at high altitude if you have a convenient mountain to take off from.
It isn't a simple matter to modify the 500m altitude restriction from take off point.
Going up that high and back down again soon takes longer than is possible with normal battery life too, because descent is actually quite slow to be safe.

 

[mightyarrow]

I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you choose not to believe me, fine. 30 secs on Youtube or less will get you your result.

It is as simple as modifying the remove the 500m cap. The Mavic is an Android device -- nothing more, nothing less. It can be modified just like any other device. Why is that hard to believe?

The main point was missed --- that saying it's not possible to fly at that altitude is silly. A minor detail in the discussion of air safety and potentially sketchy news stories involving air collisions. There are countless drones in the sky that are made from scratch, and they have no regulations or manufacturer restrictions whatsoever.

 

[4wd]

I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you choose not to believe me, fine. 30 secs on Youtube or less will get you your result.

It is as simple as modifying the remove the 500m cap. The Mavic is an Android device -- nothing more, nothing less. It can be modified just like any other device. Why is that hard to believe?

The main point was missed --- that saying it's not possible to fly at that altitude is silly. A minor detail in the discussion of air safety and potentially sketchy news stories involving air collisions. There are countless drones in the sky that are made from scratch, and they have no regulations or manufacturer restrictions whatsoever.

There's a considerable tread here about trying to go higher(with good reason)
How to Exceed Max Altitude for Mountain Flying?

No simple solutions have come to light, you should tell us how it's done.
That's not the same as saying it's just an Android OS so must be easy.
No links to videos forthcoming either I see, there are some from Phantom 2 and earlier which did not have the 500m limit.

 

[EarlieP]

@westonmavicpilot
and you sir are a blinkered fool....I never fly out of line of sight, never fly in NFZ.....I am responsible as to both how and where I fly. I do not condone any drone operator flying in restricted zones....
I simply point out the sheeple who drink in and believe as gospel, everything they read in the mainstream media....the Times for god sake is owned by one of the biggest imperial neo-Liberalists in the world....and you think he has yours or the people's best interests at heart....? Check again and educate yourself a bit....

For god's sake can someone in this world argue their point without using the phrase 'neo-liberalist'...

 

[mightyarrow]

No simple solutions have come to light, you should tell us how it's done.
That's not the same as saying it's just an Android OS so must be easy.
No links to videos forthcoming either I see, there are some from Phantom 2 and earlier which did not have the 500m limit.

You should contact the mods if you want to discuss that. They've banned any talk of how to modify the firmware. Interestingly enough, it doesn't look like that rule change came until early June.

 

[Evo1668]

I agree with this though Mavic might be a little denser than Phantoms which were more or less bendy plastic.
If one went in a jet engine, even if it did no damage (most likely outcome) there might still be downtime for checking.

Small planes might be more vulnerable but speeds are much less.
I'd like to see a small drone trying to get near a helicopter, it would be swatted like a bug or simply blasted away.

For god's sake can someone in this world argue their point without using the phrase 'neo-liberalist'...

Enlighten us all please....

 

[collins]

Nope. Just seen the video.

What "recent reports"? Recent reports of P3s striking cessnas at 100mph?

Well I gave an example of one such report in the post immediately above yours.

ASSUREuas - Research Projects - sUAS Ground Collision Report

In the powerpoint presentation that accompanied the report...

http://www.assureuas.org/projects/deliverables/a4/FAA-ASSURE_Ground_Collision_Research.pdf

It states 'Collision Dynamics of sUAS is not the same as being hit by a rock' which directly contradicts your statement that 'A Mavic, on the other hand, is like a rock.'

And so it would appear to that you are amongst (to quote you directly) 'a whole bunch of people here who do not know what they're talking about, engaging in wishful thinking -- some of it quite arrogantly delivered. Par for the course with human beings. '

Really, if your evidence for some very bold claims is limited to 'I saw it in a video one time but I cant find it' you are the last person that should be throwing frozen chickens in glass houses.

 

[collins]

I thought I would highlight another report. This time by EASA - The European Aviation Safety Agency - entitled 'Drone Collison Taskforce'

This was set up to 'The European Aviation Safety Agency Task Force has assessed the risks resulting from collisions between drones of varying masses and different categories of manned aircraft, considering their design characteristics and operational requirements.' ie specifically look at the risks of collision between manned aircraft and drone.

They split drones into 3 categories
1. Upto 25kg
2. 1.5kg to 0.5kg
3. Below 0.5kg

And in the report they found ...
Drones below 0.5kg were deemed 'harmless'

And for the 0.5kg to 1.5kg the 'severity of a collision' below 10,000ft was deemed 'low'

You can see what is meant by 'low severity' in Appendix 8. Here....

https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/TF Drone Collision_Report for Publication (005).pdf

But basically it is defined as 'only dents and scratches'. ('Medium' is defined roughly as 'No penetration but limited deformation')

Of course we dont hear anything in the press when these reports I quoted are published (Note one commissioned by the FAA and the other by EASA). Why? Because 'drones appear to be pretty harmless in the event of a collision with an aircraft' isnt much of a news headline!!

 

[westonmavicpilot]

I thought I would highlight another report. This time by EASA - The European Aviation Safety Agency - entitled 'Drone Collison Taskforce'

This was set up to 'The European Aviation Safety Agency Task Force has assessed the risks resulting from collisions between drones of varying masses and different categories of manned aircraft, considering their design characteristics and operational requirements.' ie specifically look at the risks of collision between manned aircraft and drone.

They split drones into 3 categories
1. Upto 25kg
2. 1.5kg to 0.5kg
3. Below 0.5kg

And in the report they found ...
Drones below 0.5kg were deemed 'harmless'

And for the 0.5kg to 1.5kg the 'severity of a collision' below 10,000ft was deemed 'low'

You can see what is meant by 'low severity' in Appendix 8. Here....

https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/TF Drone Collision_Report for Publication (005).pdf

But basically it is defined as 'only dents and scratches'. ('Medium' is defined roughly as 'No penetration but limited deformation')

Of course we dont hear anything in the press when these reports I quoted are published (Note one commissioned by the FAA and the other by EASA). Why? Because 'drones appear to be pretty harmless in the event of a collision with an aircraft' isnt much of a news headline!!

Don't you just love it when people want to own both sides of an argument? How many ignorant people throughout this thread and many other threads on this site have totally dismissed all newspaper articles as fiction which couldn't possibly have happened even when those articles are based on real life experiences of commercial and military pilots. Now we have someone who 'read it in a report' so it must be true! To back that up we even have a copy of the report!

Ya, ok let's shed a little reality on that. The risks tested and results achieved in a test environment when it comes to drones striking planes cannot possibly account for the random nature of a strike and the effect that can have on the plane whilst flying. So in testing this nothing catastrophic happened, doesn't mean that it's not possible. There's a long history of planes going down for the simplest of reasons, sometimes the tiniest of parts fail resulting in a crash, nothing to do with a strike, but testing doesn't cover every situation, and risk management is not a guarantee that an event won't happen, even if the likelihood of it happening is small the severity is still potentially severe.

But then again maybe you're right, maybe the FAA just prosecute people who break the rules (not even striking a plane) for kicks, maybe just to fine people to raise $$ for their Christmas party?

 

[collins]

The risks tested and results achieved in a test environment when it comes to drones striking planes cannot possibly account for the random nature of a strike and the effect that can have on the plane whilst flying. So in testing this nothing catastrophic happened, doesn't mean that it's not possible.

Of course there are risks but it is sensible to keep them in proportion.

The risks to planes is far greater from birds than it is from drones. Not because birds are inherently more dangerous in a collision with an aircraft but because there happen to be over 10 billion birds on the planet. And everything has risks - in the US, in 2015, over 23,000 people were treated in hospitals for head injuries while skateboarding!

And even though risks are relatively small, it clearly makes sense to mitigate against those risks which is why NFZs and flight altitude limits are in place.

 

[Enigma]

The Sun story is highly likely to be untrue.
Seen other stories like this and after a investigations it was a real bird with actual feathers.

 

[IIIMOODIII]

No one has pointed out the obvious here? If you are using a DJI uav then your uav will not fly near an airport, if you're in the nfz, your uav won't take off. If there are to be any new laws, it will surely not effect any mavic owners as they will already be abiding by them with dji's nfz software?

https://youtu.be/vimM1 nnzljo

 

[BikerBuster]

Chicken Salad out the exhaust?

Roast chicken salad, I'll wager..

 

[dsops]

 

[4wd]

Drone Strike

 

[Rick]

For anyone in any doubt that drone strikes on commercial aircraft bear little or no threat, would you be totally comfortable watching a drone from your cabin window on your next planned flight being ingested into the intake cowling of the plane's jet engine? Risk or potential risk may be low, the point of H&S assessments are to identify and advise on implementing standards that reduce risk. Given the choice, I would prefer that the risk of this happening was as low as is practicably possible while maintaining the opportunity for the continued use of UAV aircraft for you and me, even though that may mean developing safer standards of operation.

 

[GrahamGee2020]

I'm constantly baffled by the level of arrogance and ignorance displayed by so many people here regarding drones being flown near planes. How about we stick all those people on a plane and fly a drone into it and see if they remain so cocky about their chances at the point of impact.
Some of you complain about the way the media reports these near misses as though it's our right as drone owners to act like idiots and put people at risk - as if the public doesn't have a low enough opinion of drone flyers already you then defend the near misses on a public forum. Dumb.

I find myself reading posts that are sensible in their origins but baffled by the less informed! I don't disagree but decided to find out how many reported bird strikes for 2016 - 1835 with a further 268 near misses and 821 unconfirmed!

So I ask how many reported deaths by bird strikes - none, plenty of damage which might have caused a fatality but didn't!

It is a passionate subject but please keep it so the majority of us pleasure drone flyers do keep to the regulations handed down by the CAA not the FAA!

 

[westonmavicpilot]

I find myself reading posts that are sensible in their origins but baffled by the less informed! I don't disagree but decided to find out how many reported bird strikes for 2016 - 1835 with a further 268 near misses and 821 unconfirmed!
So I ask how many reported deaths by bird strikes - none, plenty of damage which might have caused a fatality but didn't!
It is a passionate subject but please keep it so the majority of us pleasure drone flyers do keep to the regulations handed down by the CAA not the FAA!

I understand your sentiment but speaking of the 'less informed' - this thread, and in particular my response is about drone strikes, potentially very different to something soft, squidgy and feathered striking a plane.