..and another one

[JDawg]

Most here don't bother going to a park. I've seen them launch from their garden (likely illegal if its in a town), car parks in town centres (definitely illegal) and so on.
Mostly its tourist areas like beaches, historic landmarks etc.

Where's 'here', not trying to stalk you

 

[gnirtS]

Where's 'here', not trying to stalk you

"here" currently is the UK. But normally asia.

 

[gnirtS]

Actually to give an idea how useless DJI Geofencing is for the UK (and most countries outside the US really).



You can see there their geofence is a circle from the centre of the airfield. Given runways are long you can see its completely ineffective. The geofence is 220m from the threshold of Runway 9L and 9R - it doesnt even go to the perimeter fence. So some idiot could start up and fly his drone right in line with the runway only a few hundred metres away from the threshold.
Other airports with less of a runoff are even worse - the fencing stops before the runway end.
That is London Heathrow - one of the busiest airports in the world as an example.

The actual LAW as of July is 1km from the perimeter fence - still too close in my view from an extended centre line perspective but its FAR further than DJI has listed.

Edit:- just checked Northold where this incident occurred - geofence ends 300m from the runway.

 

[Former Member]

I normally live and work in Asia and i suspect that's where the millions of sales go.

I think the lions share of drones are being sold to North America and Europe. Asia accounts for a small percentage of DJIs market, even though they are made in China. Thats why it's so strange that I never see a drone overfly here in Georgia. It's not because people dont have them, but maybe they are being careful and keeping the drone close in.

 

[Former Member]

So some idiot could start up and fly his drone right in line with the runway only a few hundred metres away from the threshold.

Thats scary. If a person was a few hundred meters from Heathrow, the sound of inbound and outbound air traffic would be obvious. Although an A320 could probably handle crashing into a drone better than a twin Cessna or Piper, it's still a hazard.

I have not seen any news articles, so far, that a drone pilot intentionally aimed his/her drone at an aircraft with intention of a collision, and actually made contact. War is different, drones are used to destroy targets. Im guessing that in the USA civil aircraft world, it hasnt happened. Yes there are idiots or ignorant people who do it to try to get a good picture, but I think their intent is not malicious.

 

[gnirtS]

I cant see why anyone would deliberately do it. However i can see people stupid enough to get as close as possible to get "cool footage". The sound of inbound/outbound traffic wouldnt put them off as everyone knows they're not allowed to do it. If theres little chance of getting caught though, they'll do it anyway.

To be fair, to actually hit a plane, especially a small plane on final you'd have to be bloody good. To see a small dot on the screen AND get the drone into position in time. Im not sure i could do that if i tried.

I think a big problem is because DJI has Geo people trust it and assume if it says its ok to fly, its ok to fly. I hear it relatively often (and you see it on forums). The CAA does have its own drone app but by their own admission, very few people use it. And i can see why - its overly complicated. If you dont understand the rules, types of airspace, NOTAMs and so on the app will just make no sense to you, It floods colours and information when in reality all an average user wants is "YES" or "NO". It needs to be simplified for the target audience. Currently its an adaptation of one designed for VFR flight and unless you understand that aspect its too confusing.

 

[sar104]

To be fair, to actually hit a plane, especially a small plane on final you'd have to be bloody good. To see a small dot on the screen AND get the drone into position in time. Im not sure i could do that if i tried.

Don't worry - I'm sure that there will soon be video games to practice that.

 

[JDawg]

I was not aware there is already a way to nab those who should not be flying. The cost is around $5,000.

One of the major drone makers is also working on a technical solution. Drone manufacturer DJI recently launched the AeroScope system, which lets police, airports, and other authorities identify airborne drones and even locate the pilots.

“Every DJI drone transmits a steady stream of information to the controller,” DJI spokesman Adam Lisberg said. “Embedded in that system is all kinds of information – altitude, speed, location, the serial number of the drone, type of drone it is – and it can be configured to automatically broadcast an FAA registration number, should that become law someday as well.”

 

[Former Member]

I was not aware there is already a way to nab those who should not be flying. The cost is around $5,000.

One of the major drone makers is also working on a technical solution. Drone manufacturer DJI recently launched the AeroScope system, which lets police, airports, and other authorities identify airborne drones and even locate the pilots.

“Every DJI drone transmits a steady stream of information to the controller,” DJI spokesman Adam Lisberg said. “Embedded in that system is all kinds of information – altitude, speed, location, the serial number of the drone, type of drone it is – and it can be configured to automatically broadcast an FAA registration number, should that become law someday as well.”

I think this came as result of legislation that allows localities to regulate and fine drone owners for improper use of their drones. I think this happened last month in the USA, and sent a shiver down my spine. Soon parks might start charging fees to fly your drone, or jurisdictions might more heavily monitor drone activity if the jurisdictions deem the drone was in violation. Speeding tickets are big money to local police, drone fines could also be big money some day.

 

[gnirtS]

My main fear with Aeroscope is it means the link is NOT secure.

(This may also cause them issues with the new EASA rules which require link security).

 

[ac0j]

Agreed - it's obviously possible that it was an attempt to collide, but that's not going to be the most likely explanation.

In that case, I take that to mean that you cant hit a plane with a drone very easy even if you try.
Just another near miss story, be it true or not it is a strike against drones. The big news will be when there IS a collision that causes serious damage and or injury.

 

[sar104]

In that case, I take that to mean that you cant hit a plane with a drone very easy even if you try.
Just another near miss story, be it true or not it is a strike against drones. The big news will be when there IS a collision that causes serious damage and or injury.

Actually I meant that it is unlikely that someone would try to do that, rather than that it is difficult to do. Although I'm sure it would be difficult.

 

[Classic flyer]

Seems like there are a lot of claims with no proof to back them up.

From USA Today -
"Oakland resident Katy O’Neill goes as far as blaming it for shattering her dining room window. "I went outside to look for a dead bird or a ball or something. I didn't see anything like that, but what I did see was a drone hovering high above my house,” she said over direct message."

Riiiight...

Well you know when the drone broke the sound barrier the pressure wave broke the lady's window...just saying...be safe, fly smart

 

[Classic flyer]

@gnirtS , can I ask what was your reason for making this thread? Im not trying to demean or disrespect you in any way, but just wondering what your motivation was.

Further to your previous comment, the testimony of the pilots and subsequent apprehension of the drone pilot is hard proof, whether it was intentional or accidental.

In the USA, there is a criminal law called reckless endangerment. Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions.

Well said sir...be safe, fly smart

 

[Former Member]

Where's 'here', not trying to stalk you

If you do, try not to shatter his dining room window with your drone. lol

 

[Former Member]

The big news will be when there IS a collision that causes serious damage and or injury.

Absolutely. Then that will raise drone paranoia to a new level to the uninformed.

 

[Thwyllo]

Bit of a dumb place to do such a thing, given that Northolt is the main military airfield for London operations, not to mention being used by the royal family as well as government and security services.

 

[AnzacJack]

I’m still trying to picture a boat full of Asian’s with 30 drones flying around it.

 

[gnirtS]

I’m still trying to picture a boat full of Asian’s with 30 drones flying around it.

Book a trip to the Similan islands between January and March and just sit off Island 8 with a camera and some beers.

 

[ac0j]

Brace your selves. Possible long post warning!

Years ago, I worked in the 2 way radio industry. We installed repeater systems, towers and such.
Towers being the subject here.
When constructing a tower up to 200 feet agl, there is NO requirements from the FAA. UNLESS it is directly in line and or close to a runway glide slope. The FAA could care lees what happens below 200 feet as far as towers are concerned.
My question is, What if an aircraft collides with this tower under 200' beyoud the obvious crash landing of course.
There is no fault of the tower owner because planes should not be flying that low anyway I assume. So it would all be on the pilot in this case. Am I correct?
This leads me to the next part, lets take down that tower and replace it with a hovering Mavic pro at 200 Feet.
Now the aircraft flys in and collides with the Mavic, and its all the Mavic Pilots fault? We all know it is, but doesnt some responsibility fall on the aircraft for flying too low? if you can put up as many 200 foot towers as you want all over a beach front property without the FAA even caring about it and it being at the peril of the "tourist helicopter pilots" If he hits your tower its his fault, but if he hits my Mavic at 200 feet next to the towers I am at fault......
I feel like the FAA is making up a lot of stuff concerning drones on the fly without to much thinking about it.
There will be some changes I am sure. But as far as towers are concerned (outside of airfields) If its under 200 feet they dont even want to know about it. Same should go for drones in My opinion.